Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Price Commission

Mr. Clemitson: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, when he intends to meet the Chairman of the Price Commission.

Mr. Michael Morris: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection when he next expects to meet the Chairman of the Price Commission.

Dr. McDonald: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection when he next intends to meet the Chairman of the Price Commission.

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection when he next expects to meet the Chairman of the Price Commission.

Mr. Giles Shaw: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection when next he is going to meet the
Chairman of the Price Commission.

Mr. Goodlad: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection when he next expects to meet the
Chairman of the Price Commission.

The Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Roy Hattersley): The chairman of the Price Commission and I meet frequently. No firm date has been set for our next meeting.

Mr. Clemitson: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the Price Commission, will he congratulate him on the action taken on tea prices?

Will he also ask him why similar action cannot be taken to restrain the unquenchable thirst of the brewers for high prices?

Mr. Hattersley: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said about the tea report. The brewers, unfortunately, pose a different problem. One of the problems concerns the structure and organisation of that industry. I am now having talks with the brewing industry in the hope that the semi-monopolistic arrangement can in some ways be broken down.
The second problem—namely, the frequency of price increases—has abated to some degree. What action we eventually take depends on the Price Commission's examination of specific parts of the industry. As my hon. Friend knows, there is an investigation into Allied Breweries. We shall know more about the industry and its pricing policy when the result of that investigation is published.

Mr. Morris: When the right hon. Gentleman meets the chairman, will he point out that having a tea price report is no way in which to undertake investigations? There has been nil consultation with those involved and nil understanding of the marketing of packaged goods. Was it not very much a by-election gimmick in view of the way in which he built it up and suddenly agreed to only a small modification, not what he was demanding a few weeks ago?

Mr. Hattersley: There is a later Question on the Order Paper on the subject of tea. However, the hon. Gentleman omitted from his litany of the Price Commission's reaction to the tea situation the fact that on Friday of the week before last the tea blenders refused to make any reduction. In the face of the order which the Price Commission made possible, the blenders have now made a reduction. That, I hope, is only the first stage. It is my policy to ensure that the price of medium-quality tea in the shops remains at or about the level recommended by the Price Commission.

Dr. McDonald: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the Price Commission, will he discuss with him the advice given by the accountants, Coopers & Lybrand, on how to avoid investigation of planned price increases, bearing in mind that the company has


carried out work for the Price Commission?

Mr. Hattersley: I am not altogether conversant with the advice that that firm gives. I know two things about companies that have been employed by the Price Commission to carry out investigations. First, some of those companies have been re-employed by the investigated companies in order that they might get more good advice of the type provided by the Price Commission. Secondly, I do not believe that there is any easy formula by which a company can avoid investigation. If prices go up in accordance with formulae which are not consistent with those in the Act, the Price Commission is likely to investigate, and the prudent company must realise that.

Mr. Canavan: Will my right hon. Friend and the Price Commission reject the Common Market demands that British Rail should stop young people between the ages of 12 and 14 from travelling for half price on the railways? This is another example of Common Market inflationary policies, which means taking money out of schoolchildren's pockets and probably taking more passengers away from the railways. Is it not about time that the Price Commission told the Common Market Commission that we have had enough?

Mr. Hattersley: I know of this case only from what I have read in this morning's newspapers. As I understand it—I am open to correction—the Price Commission will not be involved. I cannot imagine by what power the European Economic Community believes that it can influence British Rail prices.

Mr. Shaw: Coming back to the Secretary of State's answer about consultation, when he next meets the chairman of the Price Commisison, will he stress that the policy should be one of consultation, not confrontation? When are the discussions between the Price Commission and the CBI to start? If he is so pleased with the tea report, why is it that the RPI does not include the Co-op's brand of tea in its register?

Mr. Hattersley: This is a narrow statistical point which I shall try to explain. The consultations that I had with the blenders were based not only on the RPI

calculations but on two other surveys, both of which confirm the Price Commission's judgment.
On the question of consultation, I understand that talks are taking place between the Price Commission and the CBI about the information requirement. The idea that there is some sort of confrontation is certainly false and is not remotely substantiated by the facts. The tea report does not substantiate that idea. Despite what the hon. Gentleman has implied, there was constant communication between the four major blenders and the Price Commission.

Mr. Goodlad: Will the Secretary of State discuss with the chairman of the Price Commission the question of factual inaccuracies in the Price Commission's report? Is he satisfied that there is no mechanism for correcting such inaccuracies, having regard to his impotence to do anything about them?

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman means the allegations of factual inaccuracies, which is a technique employed by some companies which are investigated. The Price Commission hopes that, wherever possible, facts can be agreed with the investigated party. Where that is not possible, it is made very clear. The investigations, which I have followed up in discussions with the affected industries and companies, have in my experience normally confirmed the Price Commission's accuracy.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the co-operative movement has responded to the request made by the Department about retail tea prices and that, for the third time since August, it has led the way by making a significant reduction in shop prices? Is it not a fact that from today Britain's largest retailer will be cutting the prices of its tea to make it the most competitive national brand at 22p for a quarter pound packet, which is what the Department requested?

Mr. Hattersley: I can not only confirm what my hon. Friend said but would have repeated it in a later answer. The significant figure is 22p per quarter for medium-quality tea, which was the Price Commission's recommendation.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the chairman


of the Price Commission, will he ask him whether it is a fact that the Price Commission has now engaged the services of public relations consultants to improve its somewhat tarnished image and that it is likely to cost about £70,000 on the total budget? If the chairman tells him that that is true, will the Secretary of State tell the chairman that it is an outrageous misuse of taxpayers' money?

Mr. Hattersley: As with all agencies of this kind, the Price Commission spends its budget in the way that it chooses. I have no information on whether the Commission is employing a firm of public relations consultants. However, I do not suppose that it can rely indefinitely on the speech made by the hon. Lady in Gloucester six weeks ago.

Supermarkets (Discounts)

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if he will refer to the Price Commission the level of discounts required by supermarket chain stores from food manufacturers and the effect of these on the profitability of (a) the supermarkets and (b) the manufacturers.

The Under-Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Robert Maclennan): The Government have considered for some time that information is required about the extent and effects of granting special discounts to some retailers only, including discounts of the kind mentioned in my hon. Friend's Question. It was for this reason that a reference on this subject was made to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in July of last year. The Commission will be glad to receive any evidence that may be relevant to its inquiries.

Mr. Hooley: I welcome that statement but hope that the investigation will proceed with some speed. Is this discount policy designed to boost the profits of supermarkets or to benefit the consumer? Will the Department intervene if supermarkets adopt a policy of buying from abroad rather than from British manufacturers?

Mr. Maclennan: One of the purposes of the inquiry is to determine whether discounts are being offered to enlarge the market share of particular companies or to reflect genuine cost reductions. On

the latter point, if my hon. Friend has any evidence of that practice being pursued, I know that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission will be glad to consider it.

Mr. Adley: In view of growing concern about alcoholism, will the Undersecretary look seriously at the increasing practice of supermarkets not only to sell wines and spirits but to sell them unregulated and in accordance with magistrates' rules which vary considerably in different parts of the country? Does he agree that this practice not only increases the danger of alcoholism, particularly among housewives, but is unfair to small shops and off licences which are required stringently to observe the rules and regulations?

Mr. Maclennan: The practice to which the hon. Gentleman has referred is certainly increasing competition, and perhaps to that extent he will welcome it. The other points that he made do not arise on this Question, which is about the level of discounts.

Petrol Prices (Display) Order 1977

Mr. Silvester: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if he is satisfied with the working of the Petrol Prices (Display) Order 1977.

Mr. Maclennan: Yes. Petrol prices are now being displayed much more clearly than before and most misleading signs have been removed. There is, of course, still room for improvement, in particular by ending the practice of showing only the price for full gallons when a much higher price is being charged for part gallons. I will be reviewing the order shortly.

Mr. Silvester: Does the Undersecretary of State agree that there is still some confusion and, in particular, some misuse of the minuscule decimal point on some of these signs? This must be the only retail trade which uses the decimal point of a penny. Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on that matter?

Mr. Maclennan: Yes. This is an undesirable, though not a major, issue which will be reviewed with the other more important issues.

Mr. Stan Crowther: Is my hon. Friend aware that, even though the order may be


working satisfactorily, if I have the misfortune to have to buy petrol on a motorway service area it costs about 16p a gallon more than the price at which I can buy it in my constituency? Does he feel that that kind of variation can be justified in any circumstances?

Mr. Maclennan: It was because the Government recognised the force of the point made by my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for Transport set up an inquiry into motorway services. It is hoped that the inquiry will report in a few months. The chairman of the inquiry is Mr. Peter Prior. The inquiry is moving rapidly, and I have no doubt that it will take account of the point made by my hon. Friend.

Value Added Tax Inclusive Pricing

Mr. Carmichael: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if he is now ready to make an order on value added tax inclusive pricing.

The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. John Fraser): As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) on 30th January, I hope to make an order as soon as I have resolved the problems arising from the report by the Consumer Protection Advisory Committee.

Mr. Carmichael: Is my hon. Friend in a position to give the House any idea how long this process will take? Is he aware that the customer rightly feels cheated when, after having decided to buy something, VAT is added to the price? It is disconcerting. Will he speed up the process?

Mr. Fraser: I agree that there should be universal VAT inclusive pricing. There are some problems, in particular on builders' estimates. I cannot give the exact date, but I hope to make a firm announcement shortly.

Mr. Marten: Will the Minister explain why, when a person buys a motor car, apart from paying the vehicle licence tax, which is a car tax, he should pay VAT on the car tax? Why is such a person doubly taxed or taxed on taxation?

Mr. Fraser: Because it is the judgment of the Chancellor of the Echequer that that is the right way to do it.

Consumer Credit Act 1974

Mr. John Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what recent discussions he has had with the Director General of Fair Trading with regard to the operation of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Mr. John Fraser: As I indicated to the hon. Member in my answer on 30th January, there are regular ministerial and official contacts with the Director General. These cover consumer credit as appropriate.

Mr. Hunt: Has the Minister discussed with the Director General the wording of the application form for a standard licence under the Act? Is he aware that it contains no fewer than 48 questions and sub-questions, ranging from the soundness of the applicant's mind to whether he has committed any offences under the Race Relations Acts? Is this not a vivid demonstration of the kind of bureaucratic verbiage which is being inflicted on many small businesses at the present time? Is it not time that this kind of nonsense was stopped?

Mr. Fraser: The Consumer Credit Act was agreed by all parties in the House. Usually the questions require an answer "Yes" or "No", which should not be too difficult. It is the virtually unanimous view of the House that we should outlaw racial discrimination. I think it proper for the Director General to carry that intention into the form that he sends out to applicants.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will my hon. Friend tell the House how many licences have been refused since 1974? Is it not a fact that none has been refused, which indicates that the Act is not working as satisfactorily as it might? Will he undertake to look at the case that I have sent to the Department about a firm in Bournemouth which is charging 42½ per cent, interest on the hire purchase of a second-hand car?

Mr. Fraser: I am not aware that any licences have been refused. That does not mean that the Act is not working properly. Warnings have been issued to those who have applied for licences. The right test is not the refusal of licences but the improvement in standards.
With regard to the case mentioned by my hon. Friend, we have now brought into operation that part of the Act which allows the courts to reopen extortionate credit bargains.

Camera Trade

Mr. Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether he has completed his investigations into uniform pricing methods in the camera trade; and if, in light of his study, he will now announce his intention to amend the Resale Prices Act 1976 so as to extend its application into schemes laying down the minimum prices at which goods may be advertised.

Mr. John Fraser: The responsibility for investigating attempts to impose resale price maintenance lies with the Director General of Fair Trading. I do not think that it is necessary to amend the Resale Prices Act 1976 to deal with minimum advertised prices since I am advised that the enforcement of resale price maintenance by this means is already contrary to the Act.

Mr. Ward: May I have an assurance that the cases that I have described are covered by the Resale Prices Act? How does a retailer behave when he is threatened with his supplies being cut off and is obviously frightened? May we have an assurance that any evidence that such retailers lay will be treated in the strictest confidence?

Mr. Fraser: Any evidence of a breach of the 1976 Act should be reported to the Director General of Fair Trading. The Director General is prepared to treat complaints in confidence, but that sometimes leads to difficulties later if he wants to take further action. Retailers have a civil remedy against suppliers who try to enforce resale price maintenance.

Holiday Caravan Sites

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if he will make a statement on his discussions about consumer practices in relation to the sale and provision of sites for holiday caravans.

Mr. John Fraser: I recently had discussions with the National Federation of Site Operators and the managing director

of Trellis Scott Ltd. I informed the House on 23rd February, in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), of assurances given to me by Mr. Dunstan. These assurances will hopefully bring some relief, in particular to those licensees whose caravans are still at Dinas and who either have decided not to take up a lease or are still undecided.

Mr. Whitehead: I thank my hon. Friend for his prompt intervention in the Trellis Scott affair. Does he agree that the caravan owner who faces a local site monopoly, particularly when there is a change of control as there was in the Trellis Scott affair at Dinas, needs additional protection of tenure? Is not the time right for legislation?

Mr. Fraser: I agree that the root of the matter is the absence of security of tenure. It is important to get legislation right. Loopholes have been found in the Mobile Homes Act. I hope that, in consultation with the Department of the Environment, proposals will be put forward reasonably quickly.

Retail Price Index

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what estimate has been made of the likely trends in the retail price index up to the end of 1978

Mr. Mike Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what are his forecasts for price increases in the coming year.

Mr. Hattersley: Provided that wage settlements continue to be made at a moderate level, I expect the rate of inflation to remain in single figures throughout the year.

Mr. Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that housewives in particular will be happy with that assessment? Does he also agree that those same housewives will note the Tory Party's support for the tea blenders and their opposition to reducing prices? When will the order be debated in the House?

Mr. Hattersley: I cannot recall a single occasion in the last 18 months when the Tory Party has not consistently voted and spoken against every attempt we have made to control prices. I am not


sure when the order will be debated. I hope that the tea blenders will continue their consultations. We shall see how the proposals work out. We must have a movement of tea prices towards the level recommended by the Price Commission. There will be an order and a debate if that is not brought about in other ways.

Mr. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the CWS is leading the way by reducing the price of tea to 22p per quarter, 5·3 pence below the average arrived at by the Price Commission? Does he accept that that meets his criterion and that the CWS should not be penalised for selling tea lower than the other blenders? Will he give credit to the CWS for starting to bring down the price?

Mr. Hattersley: For the second time today I am glad to acknowledge that movement, and I hope that the CWS will bring with it the rest of the industry. I am more interested in the overall average price of medium-quality tea. That is the figure on which the Price Commission concentrated and that is the figure on which I must take action if the blenders, retailers and the rest of the market do not produce that sort of result over the next week or two.

Mr. Baker: When the last retail price index figures came out, the Secretary of State commented on them at the headquarters of the Ilford, North Labour Party during the by-election campaign. Does the Secretary of State think that his intervention in that campaign helped his party's candidate?

Mr. Hattersley: That campaign was characterised by different issues which I do not propose to raise this afternoon.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: My right hon. Friend and the Chairman of the Price Commission are to be congratulated on what they have done about tea, but is my right hon. Friend aware that when, due to certain circumstances, the price of a commodity rises, when those circumstances end prices should come down? Is he aware that prices still remain high in such circumstances and force up the index? What does he intend to do about it?

Mr. Hattersley: That is the problem with which the Price Commission dealt. When raw material prices went up, the

prices in the shops went up, but benefits are not always passed on when the price of raw materials comes down. This is an important matter with which the Price Commission attempted to deal in its report on tea.

Mr. Neubert: Is the Secretary of State aware that in a Written Answer of 27th February it was shown that a given increase in earnings is likely to result in an equal rise in prices? As earnings are generally acknowledged to be increasing by 12 per cent, to 15 per cent., is not the return to double figure inflation more a question of when rather than whether?

Mr. Hattersley: No. The position is as I have described it and as I shall continue to describe it. Inflation will remain in single figures this year and into 1979. The evidence for that is overwhelming.

Advice Centres

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection how many new consumer advice centres will open in the next year.

Mr. John Fraser: It is intended that 26 new centres will open as a result of the £300,000 which my Department is providing to grant-aid their setting up costs. A total of 25 of these centres are receiving 100 per cent, grants. I hope that other centres might also be opened independently of this scheme.

Mr. Bennett: I welcome that reply. Can my hon. Friend say what steps he is taking to ensure that the less progressive authorities do not close centres that are already running successfully?

Mr. Fraser: On every occasion when there is a proposal to close a centre, I offer to discuss it with the chairman of the consumer protection committee. I understand that the proposal in Manchester to close centres has been deferred until May. I am glad that there has been no precipitate decision.

Mr. Rathbone: Does the Minister accept that local government authorities are best able to decide whether the centres are worth while and that therefore Ministers should take more cognisance of their wishes?

Mr. Fraser: I have always accepted that local government should have


autonomy, but sometimes the views of the party in power are not the same as those of consumers.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is becoming more difficult for consumers to know what is going on because of the increasing number of EEC directives? Will he ensure that more consumer centres are opened as soon as possible?

Mr. Fraser: I have ensured that 26 new centres will be opened this year. As a result of 100 per cent. Government grants, no cost will fall on the ratepayers.

Hon. Members: Taxpayers.

Mr. Fraser: I hope that the House welcomes the scheme.

Price Code Regulations

Mr. Waller Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection when he next expects to meet the Chairman of the Price Commission concerning the operation of the Price Code Regulations.

Mr. Hattersley: The Chairman of the Price Commission and I meet frequently, but no firm date has been set for our next meeting. I have no plans at present to discuss the Price Code, as distinct from the Price Commission's investigation and examination functions.

Mr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House are seriously concerned about the Price Commission's inability to freeze certain prices because of the Price Code regulations? The brewers are a blatant example of that. Will my right hon. Friend introduce amending legislation without delay?

Mr. Hattersley: I know that many of my hon. Friends fear that the present level of safeguards prevents the Price Commission from taking action that it would otherwise have taken. As a result, I have asked the Price Commission to report to me whenever it is inhibited, because of the level of the safeguards, from taking action that it would choose to take. If I find that there is a general problem, I shall begin consultations with interested parties and introduce an amending order in the House.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend agree to the suggestion that,

in Hansard tomorrow, he should support the idea that we should substitute the words "tea blenders" for "wage guidelines"?

Mr. Hattersley: I might even support that now, if I understood what it meant.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I return to the Secretary of State's previous answer. Does he acknowledge that if there were a price freeze for any considerable period many more hundreds of thousands of people would be out of work?

Mr. Hattersley: I am wholly opposed to a general price freeze. That issue is not related to the Question. The safeguard levels are not connected with a price freeze. If there were no safeguards the Price Commission would still have to carry out its statutory duty and make individual judgments about different price levels and increases.

Multinational Companies

Mr. Litterick: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether he is satisfied that the Price Commission has adequate powers to assess the acceptability of prices charged for goods manufactured by foreign-based multinational companies.

Mr. Maclennan: Prices for all goods and services produced in the United Kingdom can be investigated by the Price Commission whether the company concerned is United Kingdom-owned or the subsidiary of a foreign-based multinational company.

Mr. Litterick: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that that answer does not meet the Question at all? Does he realise that the Question refers to goods produced by multinational companies? May I rephrase the question? How can the Price Commission confidently know what is the cost of production and what are the profit margins on goods produced by multinational companies commonly using many production and distribution centres throughout the world? How can the Price Commission possibly say that it has any chance of being able to give sound advice on price controls and regulations for such organisations and such products?

Mr. Maclennan: I do not know which concerns my hon. Friend has in mind—

Mr. Litterick: Heavy electrical goods.

Mr. Maclennan: If the manufacturing operation is in this country, the goods produced are subject to the scrutiny of the Price Commission, regardless of the ultimate ownership of the company and whether it is foreign-based.

Price Commission

Mr. Budgen: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what are the terms and conditions of appointment of the Chairman of the Price Commission.

Mr. Hattersley: Mr. Charles Williams was appointed full-time Chairman of the Price Commission for a period of two years from 1st August 1977 at an annual salary of £18,000.

Mr. Budgen: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the tea prices issue illustrates that he and the Chairman of the Price Commission together have acted in an arbitrary and political way? Will he warn the chairman that any party which believes in competition and market forces ought, when it is returned to power, to dismiss both the chairman and the Price Commission?

Mr. Hattersley: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has read the report on the tea blenders. If he has done so, he might have done the House the courtesy of referring to those paragraphs which complain that competition within that industry is insufficient.

Mr. Molloy: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the comments of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) would be totally rejected by some manufacturers? Does he further agree that organisations such as the CWS and Lyons Tetley have voluntarily brought down the price of tea to 22p per quarter? Is he aware that there are some manufacturers who believe that only one set of tea blenders is consulted when the general index has to be adjusted? Will he please look into that and ensure that a wider range of tea blenders is consulted?

Mr. Hattersley: All of the questions about the report concerning the tea blenders have demonstrated, irrespective of what might be said in the House and the? country, that whenever there is the oppor-

tunity to take positive action to reduce specific prices the Opposition always are vocally against such a move.

Inflation

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if he will make a statement on the latest percentage figure of inflation.

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what is the year-on-year rate of inflation at the latest available date.

Mr. Montgomery: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what has been the increase in the retail price index since March 1974.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what is the increase in the Price Commission six-monthly index.

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what is the latest monthly figure for the retail price index.

Mr. Hattersley: The retail price index rose by 0·6 per cent, in January. This brings the annual rate of increase down to 9·9 per cent, for the first time since October 1973. The increase since March 1974 has been 84·7 per cent. The revised figure for the rise in the Price Commission index for the six months to January is 5·9 per cent, at an annual rate.

Mr. Wainwright: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me all the praise that can be handed to him and to the Government for their policy which has brought down the cost of living? Will he also bear in mind that prices that have come down can go up again if there is not an effort made to preserve a continuous downward trend in the price of goods? May I ask him, next time he broadcasts, makes a statement to the Press or speaks anywhere, to try to explain the Opposition's criticism of the Government's efforts?

Mr. Hattersley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his words of congratulation. I am sure that he agrees with me that the congratulations concerning the achievements of the past 18 months ought to go to the trade union


movement—leaders and members—whose wages policy has made this achievement possible. Although I agree with my hon. Friend that it is an achievement of some substance, I cannot begin to explain the attitude of the Opposition, which has been solidly and continually against everything that we have done in the past two years.

Mr. Knox: While the recent reduction in the rate of inflation is obviously welcome, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he realises that the annual figure of 9·9 per cent, which he has given and which is the lowest annual rate of inflation under this Government is still higher than the average rate of inflation under the last Conservative Government?

Mr. Hattersley: Of course I very much want to see a further reduction, and our policy will be directed towards that end. I am happy to be a member of a Government who have passed the single figure mark on the way down while the hon. Gentleman was a supporter of a Government which passed the single figure mark going up.

Mr. Montgomery: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the fact that prices have almost doubled during four years of Labour Government is total indictment of the Government? Since the right hon. Gentleman launched the Labour Party campaign in the Ilford, North by-election in a great glare of publicity, and since the electors of Ilford, North clearly showed what they think of the Government's policy, may we have an assurance that he will launch all Labour by-election campaigns from now until the next General Election?

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman conveniently fails to mention a number of factors about the inflation rate over the past four years, such as an increase of 400 per cent, in oil prices which, I think he will agree, had some effect on prices in this country. As for the Ilford, North result, I can only repeat what I said earlier. I repeat it to the hon. Member in particular. The Ilford, North campaign was fought and lost on a different issue from prices.

Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the trade union movement has played a large part in getting the inflation figures down and that the next Budget ought to have regard to this? Does he

not agree that future financial policies put forward by the Government should ensure that the rate of increase is kept down in the years ahead? Will he look forward to the day when the inflation rate falls below 8·4 per cent., when we shall no doubt have a cheer from the Conservative Party?

Mr. Hattersley: The achievement is largely that of the trade unions. It must be built on and improved upon. The real reward of the two years of hard policy and sacrifice is that during 1978 and into 1979 there will be a real improvement in the standard of living. That will be because earnings will rise faster than prices. That is something for which we have all struggled in the past two years.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Does the right hon. Gentleman really expect congratulations from anyone on the fact that the Government have taken nearly four years to bring down inflation temporarily—very temporarily—to single figures? Has he any idea of the hardship that has been suffered during this period in which prices have almost doubled? Has he not grasped the fact that the people of this country, far from awarding accolades to the Government, will neither forgive nor forget that the Government are the Government of the highest prices ever? Does he not realise that the Ilford, North by-election was won on prices and not any other issue?

Mr. Hattersley: I am reluctant to take lectures from the hon. Lady about financial hardship. It does not seem to me to be a subject on which she is art authority. She ought to understand! that the people of this country are a great deal more understanding about politics and economic reality than she is. I do not believe that she commends herself to them by her constant strident attacks on every achievement by the Government.

Mr. Madden: Reverting to the question of the brewers, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees that they have been profiteering at the expense of their customers for years? Notwithstanding the fact that they have made monster contributions to the Conservative Party for a long time and the fact that the official Opposition oppose price controls of any sort, may I ask my right hon. Friend to institute a price freeze on the


products of the brewers? Does he apppreciate that if he were to do this the Chairman of the Price Commission would receive acclamation from the general public for a move which would be warmly regarded by the country?

Mr. Hattersley: I do not want to use words such as "profiteering", but I have said and will continue to say that I believe that over the past two years the brewers have made price increases which were far too frequent and in many cases unnecessary. As for action against specific breweries or the brewing industry as a whole, that must depend upon the report submitted to me by the Price Commission. One major brewer is now under investigation. The way in which the brewers' performance ought to be improved, together with their service to customers, is by a change in their relationships with their retail outlets, the "tie" and those things which create a semi-monopoly in the brewing industry. That is where the long-term action must be taken.

Price Commission

Mr. Tim Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether he has appointed another vice-chairman of the Price Commission.

Mr. Hattersley: I very much regret that Dr. Hobday has found that pressure of other commitments forces him to resign from the part-time deputy chairmanship. I am most grateful to him for the valuable contribution he has made to the Price Commission's work. I am appointing to succeed him Mr. Leslie Pincott, the retiring managing director of the Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd.

Mr. Smith: Was it pressure of work that led Dr. Hobday to resign or was it a conflict on policy or a conflict of interest on his part?

Mr. Hattersley: Dr. Hobday issued a very clear statement saying that only pressure of work had made it necessary for him to resign, that he had enjoyed and valued his period with the Price Commission, and that he regretted that he could not continue with the Price Commission.
Another point that will be noted by people outside is the way Members of the Opposition treat very senior indus-

trialists—one of whom has resigned and one of whom is about to be appointed— who want to serve the public and the Government.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are becoming sick of this personal sniping at the Price Commission and that the public will benefit, certainly in the case of the Co-operative Wholesale Society, by about £2 million in a full year from every penny by which it has reduced the price of its tea, and that the £18,000 a year paid to Charles Williams and the money spent on the rest of the Price Commission is money very well spent?

Mr. Hattersley: We must just learn to live with the rather low standard of political debate that we have from the Opposition.

Mr. Rathbone: Does the Secretary of State admit that it is not because of any lack of effort on the part of the Price Commission that criticism comes from these Benches but, rather, because of lack of direction from the Government as to what the Price Commission is about? To ensure that the new deputy chairman has an equally enjoyable period of office to that of his predecessor, will the Government make it absolutely clear to him that it is competition that keeps prices down and not Government decree?

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman is doing his best to reclaim a little lost territory, but it is not good enough. He asks for more direction from the Government, but he will recall that the Act setting up the Price Commission—admittedly he voted against it for two days and a night—requires the Government not to direct the Commission in any direct way but requires the Commission to take its own decisions about a number of matters, as British industry wished it would. That is the basic fact, which I am sure is right, about the Price Commission's existence.

Price Commission Investigations

Mr. Durant: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection how many Price Commission investigations have been instigated so far.

Mr. Maclennan: The Price Commission has instigated 17 investigations, the


reports on eight of which have been published to date. Two more are to be published shortly.

Mr. Durant: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of these investigations was of a large company in my constituency where the price increase was directly attributable to the price increase imposed by the British Steel Corporation? Is not this a waste of time and should not the legislation be altered so that at least prices of commodities such as steel, and also the British Steel Corporation, can be investigated?

Mr. Maclennan: It is inevitable when companies are investigated that some hon. Member's constituency will be affected. The nationalised industries are subject to investigation under the Price Commission Act.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Not steel.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Lady, from her sedentary position, is presumably speaking of the provisions of the European Coal and Steel Community which, as she rightly implies, preclude such an investigation.

Mr. Marten: In view of all the work that the Price Commssion is doing, will the Minister tell us what it costs together with the consumer advice centres which were mentioned in an earlier Question? What is the total cost?

Mr. Maclennan: I would not wish to give that information without notice.

Mr. Molloy: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the cost of the Price Commission is well worth paying in the fight against inflation? In that fight the trade union movement has not been coerced but, in a voluntary spirit in an effort to secure what is best for the nation, has co-operated fully with the Government. The Price Commission has a very onerous responsibility. Does not my hon. Friend agree that perhaps the apotheosis of hypocrisy was achieved by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim), who is the spokesman on prices for the Opposition, when on a television programme she showed the increase in the price of commodities in the shopping bag but took care not to say "If I had had my way and if we could have killed the Price Commission, under the Tories

these prices would have been infinitely higher"?

Mr. Maclennan: The whole country will have noticed that the thrust of the Opposition's case this afternoon has been an attempt to demolish the Price Commission—(HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] No doubt it will also notice that that has now been confirmed. The general public will notice that throughout the lifetime of this Government the Opposition have consistently sought to attack root and branch all measures designed to hold down the cost of living.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House by how much the rate of inflation has gone down due to activities of the Price Commission? Come on—let us have it straight out.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman knows that the prime purpose of the Price Commission is to reinforce competition—which he ostensibly supports—but when any action is taken to sharpen competition he and his hon. Friends go to the defence of their industrial friends.

Incomes Policy (Government Action)

Mr. Michael Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what estimate he has made of the effect on prices of the Government's voluntary incomes policy black list.

Mr. Hattersley: Recent improvements in the inflation rate are largely the result of moderate wage agreements made over the past two and a half years. It would clearly be damaging to the prospects of general acceptance of this policy if some wage increases, outside the guidelines, were subsidised out of public funds.

Mr. Marshall: Does the Secretary of State recognise that he has totally failed to answer the Question? He must recognise that if those who are potential tenderers—whether to local government, to central Government or to nationalised industries—were knocked out, that would be bound to have an effect in increasing prices? What does he intend to do to monitor the situation?

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands how what he calls the black list operates. It operates not as a punishment but as a deterrent. When the deterrent actually works and wage


agreements are made within the guidelines, the company tenders and it and the Government live happily ever after.

Mr. Mike Thomas: What effect would it have on the morale of the trade union movement were it to be known that, through the financing of Government contracts, those employers which chose to break the wages policy were subsidised by the House, by the Government and by public funds, whereas those which kept to the policy gained no benefit?

Mr. Hattersley: That question is best left to the Opposition, but I put it to them in the hope of getting an answer. Do they or do they not, if they support the policy of moderate wage increases within the guidelines, want wage increases outside the guidelines to be paid for by the taxpayer and the ratepayer? I do not, but I do not know what the Opposition want.

Mr. Ridley: Are there not more firms on the white list which have broken the guidelines but not been disciplined than there are on the black list? Therefore, is it not the apotheosis of hypocrisy to pretend that the policy is keeping down prices?

Mr. Hattersley: No. According to the CBI—the figures we have confirm the CBI's judgment—96 per cent, of companies which have made settlements in the last pay round have made those settlements within the terms of the pay policy. Therefore, those 96 per cent, of all British companies are able to contract with the Govenment and the so-called black list has no effect on them.

Small Businesses (Questionnaires)

Mrs. Knight: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if he will seek to amend the law so as to impose a duty on the Price Commission to consult representatives of small business men's trade associations before sending out questionnaries to firms.

Mr. Maclennan: No. It is already the normal practice of the Price Commission to discuss questionnaires with relevant trade associations.

Mrs. Knight: Is not the Minister aware that some of the questions asked are highly detrimental to small business men,

in that they force them to reveal details which are helpful to their competitors? Is it not highly immoral to bludgeon people—as was recently done to my constituent Mr. Philip Lawrence—with threats of High Court action and huge fines to make these harmful revelations?

Mr. Maclennan: It is of paramount importance that in proceeding with these investigations of companies which may or may not have acted in such a way as to raise prices unnecessarily the Price Commission should act on the basis of the fullest possible information. In order to avoid unnecessary burdens being placed upon companies, it is the practice of the Price Commission to discuss fully with the relevant trade associations the contents of the questionnaires and in many cases to discuss them with the firm itself.

Mrs. Knight: In view of the highly unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Coal Merchants (Wales)

Mr. Grist: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection when he referred the matter of costs and charges of coal merchants in West Wales to the Price Commissions; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hattersley: Under Sections 4 and 5 of the Price Commission Act 1977, the Commission decides which cases it will investigate. The Commission served notice on 28th October 1977 of its intention to investigate the margins of 14 coal merchants in an area of West Wales. The report was made to me and copies sent to the merchants concerned on 23rd January 1978, laid before this House on 27th February, and published on 28th February. I also announced on 28th February my decision on the recommendations made by the Commission.

Mr. Grist: What does the Secretary of State intend to do to ensure that so slipshod and unfair a report does not appear again? Will he ask why the Price Commission did not investigate the affairs of the Kilgetty Co-operative Society, which is one of the biggest merchants in the area?

Mr. Hattersley: I do not for a moment believe that the report was slipshod and unsatisfactory, although, again, I know


that some of the people who were investigated thought it to be so, which is why I invited them to come to discuss the report with me—an invitation which they chose not to take up. What I intend to do to implement the recommendations of the report is to ask the Director General of Fair Trading to examine the contention that there is not competition between those coal merchants, and I am sure that all the supporters of competition on the Opposition Benches will applaud me for doing so.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on how many occasions he has visited the Duchy in the last 12 months; and what were the purposes of such visits.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Harold Lever): I frequently find myself in Duchy territory, among other reasons because my constituency lies within the Duchy. I rarely find it necessary to enter the Duchy specifically on Duchy business.

Mr. Hamilton: Is it not time that my right hon. Friend did? Does he notice from the last accounts of the Duchy that the owner took £445,000 tax-free, compared with £415,000 tax-free the year before? How does my right hon. Friend think that that conforms with the Government's prices and incomes policy?

Mr. Lever: I am afraid that my presence in the Duchy territory is not necessary to control the Duchy's accounts.

Mr. Hamilton: I think that it is.

Mr. Lever: I do not think that my hon. Friend would be gratified if I spent my time in Duchy territory rather than here to answer these questions.

Mr. Hamilton: I think so, yes.

Mr. Lever: In the second part of his supplementary question, my hon. Friend takes the figures which he cites as referring to Her Majesty's personal expenditure. That, of course, is not the case.

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether

he will detail the number of staff employed in the administration of the Duchy at the end of 1977, 1975 and 1973, and their total emoluments in each of those years.

Mr. Lever: The number of such staff has remained unchanged at 11 in each of the years mentioned, and I shall publish details of their salary costs in the Official Report. The Duchy follows Civil Service rates of pay, and all increases in this period have been in accord with Government pay policy.

Mr. Renton: From those interesting figures, does the Chancellor of the Duchy conclude that the Duchy represents a very successful family business, which has been handed down, by and large, from father to son since 1399? From his experience as its Chancellor, and from his experience as a successful business man himself, what guidance and help does the right hon. Gentleman have to offer to other family businesses which have been somewhat less fortunate?

Mr. Lever: I am not sure that the Duchy falls within my remit as co-ordinator in relation to small businesses, and I cannot say that it is to be regarded as a family business. I think that it could rightly be seen to be a family estate related to—

Mr. William Hamilton: Feudal monopoly.

Mr. Lever: —related to the Royal Family. I like to believe that there are sermons in stones and lessons in trees, but I cannot derive great guidance in relation to small business activity from the Duchy work itself. The Duchy, I am satisfied, is very well run as a Royal estate in a manner which is pretty widely understood. As regards small businesses, I shall seek what inspiration I can from my Duchy duties and any other duties which are assigned to me.

Following is the information:






£


1976–77
…
…
…
62,899


1974–75
…
…
…
52,675


1972–73
…
…
…
31,690

These figures include national insurance contributions and relate to the financial years of the Duchy which ended on 29th September.

CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Gow: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will list his official engagements for 6th
March 1978.

Mr. Canavan: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will list his official engagements for 6th March.

Mr. Lever: Apart from my duties in this House, I have one meeting today with ministerial colleagues.

Mr. Gow: Will the Chancellor of the Duchy find time today to explain what he meant in his speech a week ago at the Grosvenor House Hotel, at the conference organised by the Financial Times on the subject of world banking in 1978, a Press release of which was issued by No. 10 Downing Street? In particular, will he tell the House whether he really believes that we should put an end to the floating rate of sterling and return to a fixed parity?

Mr. Lever: I should certainly like to see an orderly system of co-operative management internationally in the parities of nations. The present disorder in the international currency markets may give great delight to the rhetoricians of freedom of markets without restriction in all circumstances. It gives no satisfaction to me or, I suspect, to the 15 million unemployed among the advanced countries of the world, whose employment prospects, in my view, are jeopardised by the growing instability of currencies in recent times.

Mr. Canavan: In his capacity as Government economic adviser, could my right hon. Friend make a statement today about oil revenues? Does he agree that they should be used to help those most in need, whether they be on Clydeside, Merseyside, Tyneside or Teesside? Further, in view of the claim made this morning by the chairman of the Scottish National Party that the English are stealing Scotland's oil, will my right hon. Friend ask the parliamentary leader of the SNP to dissociate himself from such disgusting, divisive and racialist propaganda?

Mr. Lever: I agree with my hon. Friend in inviting a broad and benign

governmental apportionment of such part of the wealth of the country as comes within the Government's purview. I do not think that an invitation from me to the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) is likely to produce the kind of response which my hon. Friend has in mind.

Mr. Biffen: Is it now the Government's policy to seek an orderly return to a fixed rate for sterling?

Mr. Lever: I think that these matters require more careful explanation than can be given even in response to an indignant supplementary question from the hon. Gentleman. It is certainly the Government's policy to seek greater stability in world currency markets than we have been seeing of late. It is the Government's view that the present anarchy in international currency markets operates to the disadvantage of the peoples of the world, and of no country more dangerously than to our own.

Mr. Robinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on the Government Benches agree very much with his article in yesterday's Sunday Times and are deeply concerned and bitterly disappointed about the lack of success of the economic summit to do anything about these problems? If we cannot secure a more co-ordinated programme for reflation in the strong markets, shall we not have to take risks here at home which we do not want? Can my right hon. Friend treat it as top priority in his relations with the Prime Minister to get countries which are strong to reflate?

Mr. Lever: I think that my hon. Friend underestimates the efforts which have already been made by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in pressing for the kind of economic and monetary co-operation which he has in mind. There is no reason to believe that the processes of accommodation and international conciliation and negotiation are by any means exhausted. I suggest that my hon. Friend is wrong in concluding that the efforts arising from the summit have been as negative as he supposes. Many valuable results have come from these exchanges, and my hon. Friend must not be so impetuous as to believe that there is not hope for further important advances in international economic co-operation.

Mr. Rathbone: Will the right hon. Gentleman take it that many of us on the Opposition Benches find it extremely worrying that he does not have time within his diary today to concentrate on the problems of small business? He announced only one meeting today, and that with Ministers. Will the right hon. Gentleman take it that the Opposition await with interest his indications of what the Government will do to relieve small businesses of the burdens which they have imposed upon them?

Mr. Lever: The hon. Gentleman could not have carefully considered the terms of the Question and my answer. I was referring to my official engagements for today and not at all to my duties and work in terms of correspondence, conferences and discussions that take place every day. The hon. Gentleman can put his mind at rest. There is no working day when I and my staff are not seeking further achievement in the encouragement and support of small businesses. The hon. Gentleman takes a very negative view if he supposes that the help consists of removing obstacles which we ourselves have placed upon small businesses. The fact is that the last Labour Government were responsible for the Bolton Committee inquiry into what could be done for small businesses. We accepted its report and we shall continue our efforts systematically to improve the prospects and conditions of work of small businesses.

Mr. Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the failure of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the Government's economic policy, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: I allowed the hon. Gentleman to make his point of order in that way, but I hope that all hon. Members will continue to use the usual formula: "In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply".

RHODESIA

Mr. John Davies: Mr. John Davies (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he proposes to take to support the agree-

ment signed in Salisbury, Rhodesia, last Saturday.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. David Owen): I discussed the agreement signed in Salisbury with Bishop Muzorewa this morning and will be seeing him again this afternoon before he leaves for Washington tomorrow. I am in close touch with Secretary Vance.
Britain and the United States will continue to do everything possible to widen the areas of agreement and to help resolve the major outstanding problems, in particular how to ensure a genuine transfers of power to the majority and stable conditions in which fair and free elections can take place and all the nationalist leaders can take part.

Mr. Davies: May I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the moment has come for him to take a decisive lead in relation to the developments that have taken place? May I ask him four questions?
First, in the light of what the right hon. Gentleman has said today, can he unconditionally assure the House that, in the event of a motion being put to the Security Council to condemn that settlement, Great Britain will veto it?
Secondly, will he confirm that in the event of the Five Principles being fulfilled, and its being evident that the people of Rhodesia as a whole support the settlement that has been reached, he will move to the abolition of sanctions at an early date?
Thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman take advantage of his special position to bring every possible persuasion to bear upon the Patriotic Front leaders now to forswear the use of arms and to join in a peaceful settlement in Rhodesia?
Fourthly, as I have so long asked the right hon. Gentleman, will he not now consider it the right moment to install a high-level mission in Salisbury, both to inform himself of the progress of events and to assist in whatever way possible towards fulfilment of the settlement that has been reached?
Finally, may I enjoin upon the right hon. Gentleman the need that this House should at an early date have a full debate on these matters in Government time in order that the views of the House can be


fully expressed to him before further action is taken?

Dr. Owen: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Lord President heard what the right hon. Gentleman said about a debate. Certainly the Government have every wish to have a discussion at the right and opportune moment.
It is not yet certain whether there will be a debate in the Security Council. I do not believe that it is the right time to have a debate there, but should there be a debate in the Security Council, it is very important that all the nationalist leaders should have the opportunity to attend.
As for what Britain's position would be, I have made it perfectly clear for some months that I am not prepared to condemn or to support what is at this stage an important first step but one on a path along which there is much further to go.
As to the Five Principles being fulfilled, we are in favour of all Six Principles. The fifth is a crucial principle. The time when we would make the final judgment is still open to question. But there is no doubt that the world will expect Britain to ensure that there is a constitution, that there have been fair and free elections and that on independence there has been a genuine transfer of power. The world will not expect us to give away all the things we have on the form of a final settlement until that full transfer of power has taken place.
As for the question of the Patriotic Front, it is a very important part of my role to involve all the nationalist leaders, and I shall do so in every way that I can. This will obviously have to be pursued in further discussions.
With regard to installing a high-level diplomat in Salisbury, the right hon. Gentleman knows that we still have somebody there. It was not by my choosing that the previous diplomat left Salisbury. There may come a time when what the right hon. Gentleman suggests is an appropriate response, and I certainly do not exclude it.

Mr. David Steel: Does the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary agree that the right attitude at present in this country should be to hope that this transitional

agreement will lead to a peaceful settlement acceptable to the people of Zimbabwe as a whole? If that is to be the outcome, we would support efforts by the Government, the United Nations and neighbouring Heads of State to encourage the participation of the Patriotic Front. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that a test of African opinion will have to be carried out at some stage before the House could contemplate ending its responsibilities for that territory?

Dr. Owen: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in stressing that this is a transitional agreement in regard to which there are many major issues still to be resolved. I agree that it is very important to do everything possible to involve the Patriotic Front and all the nationalist leaders. I confirm that there must be a test of opinion—of all African opinon—as to the agreement's overall acceptability. This must take account of the constitution and of the basic change towards a new, independent Zimbabwe.

Mr. John Mendelson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that in the opinion of many people in this country when the Opposition spokesmen ask him to take a major initiative they seem to overlook that he and the Government have already taken a major initiative—they took it some months ago—and that the results are beginning to show? It is wholly unrealistic for anyone to assume that Mr. Smith would have moved as far as he has moved without the initiative taken by my right hon. Friend some time ago.
In particular, will my right hon. Friend accept that it is well realised in this country that his co-operation with the United States and the activation of the United States had a great deal to do with the improvement in the position? Will my right hon. Friend take confidence from these points and continue steadily on the line that he has taken and not be rushed into panic decisions by spokesmen of Mr. Smith in the House?

Dr. Owen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. I have no intention whatever of being rushed. This is a very serious issue which needs to be taken steadily and in good time. I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said about the progress that has been made, which I believe owes much to the Anglo-United


States initiative and the steady pressure that has been applied.
I am unrepentant in going for what I believe to be an ideal solution, which is a ceasefire and total participation of the nationalist leaders. I shall still pursue that major ingredient of the Anglo-United States initiative, but I am realistic. It may be that that cannot be achieved, but we should still aim for the ideal solution, a ceasefire, in which circumstances we could be certain of having fair and free elections.

Mr. Maudling: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's intention to build on what has been achieved in the past week or two. I have two questions to put to him. First, twice this afternoon he used the word "genuine". Does he believe that there is anything in the agreement recently reached in Salisbury which is not genuine? [HON. MEMBERS: "Smith."] This is a very important question. Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear in any discussions in the United Nations that if agreement can be reached on majority rule and free elections anyone who continues to prefer the bullet to the ballot box will be fighting not for justice but for his own power?

Dr. Owen: The use of the word "genuine" was because one can have a transfer of power but it might be open to question. That is one of the reasons we have always thought that any agreement should be judged by the people of Zimbabwe as a whole. That would be a genuine test of opinion. I think that that is the best test that the House, on the fifth principle, has always wanted to see.
As to the result of elections, it has been a central part of the Anglo-United States initiative that there should be fair and free elections and that all the nationalist leaders should participate freely and fairly and no one side should claim a dominant position. That is still our major objective.

Mr. Hooley: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that if it were suggested that 28 per cent, of the seats in the House of Commons should be allocated to the 3 per cent, ethnic minority in the United Kingdom, it would be regarded with ridicule and derision? Does he not also agree that such a proposition is hardly likely to commend itself either to opinion throughout Africa or in the United Nations?

Dr. Owen: I agree with my hon. Friend in the sense that we put forward the proposition that there should be a smaller number of specially elected Members in a larger House. I think that the 28 per cent, proposition does present problems for the whole of the settlement. It has been claimed, and is in part of the agreement, that these 28 Members would not participate in the formation of a Government, and that the 72 Members elected on universal franchise would be the only people who would participate in a Government, and also the only people who would—as I hope—elect the President and, if necessary, perhaps impeach him.
There is no doubt that the arrangement will be greatly criticised. Indeed, it has been greatly criticised already This makes it even more important that the rest of the arrangements, particularly the detail of the constitution, should be negotiated, and seen to be negotiated, fairly and in a way which will ensure majority rights as well as the proper protection of minorities.

Mr. Amery: The right hon. Gentleman has rightly stressed the importance of a ceasefire. Does he agree that without Soviet support the Patriotic Front would not be able to carry on military operations for very long? Would he not therefore also agree that, in those circumstances, to press for the Patriotic Front's association with the agreement would, unless it renounces terrorism, in effect be to give a veto to the Soviet Union on any arrangement to express in rather more polite terms what Ambassador Young was saying the other day—that any settlement must be acceptable to Moscow?

Dr. Owen: I would not agree with almost anything that the right hon. Gentleman has said. The situation is far more complex than that. There is no doubt that the Patriotic Front forces have been able to have training and arms supplies from the Soviet Union and other suppliers. But we have to face the fact that the Patriotic Front forces took up arms in order to try to free their country, and that they have not been able to have armed help from the Western democracies. That was a perfectly legitimate decision by the Western democracies which we all took. We have helped with humanitarian assistance in all sorts of ways but have been unable to give military support.
This raises a very serious question. The fact is that if Western democracies hold to their position of being unable to supply arms, the arms will be supplied by other countries. I do not approve of that, but I think that one should not go on to make the assumption that anyone thus armed by the Soviet Union is necessarily Marxist or totally dominated from Moscow. That is not my reading of Mr. Nkomo or Mr. Mugabe.

Mr. Faulds: As these unbalanced arrangements are unlikely to succeed, will my right hon. Friend maintain his insistence on the inclusion of the Patriotic Front so that there can be some prospect of an end to the fighting? Will he also maintain the imposition of sanctions, which may help to concentrate the minds of the minority regime, which remains in power, and prevent any possibility of back-sliding?

Dr. Owen: I want the Patriotic Front to be involved, and honourably involved, in the arrangements for a negotiated peaceful settlement and an independent Zimbabwe. But, as I have said in the House many times, and in Africa and to all the parties, no one side can claim a veto. If we were to accept such a proposition, we would be accepting that people on either side of the dispute could, through force of arms, claim a monopoly.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Does not the Foreign Secretary agree that the Salisbury proposals and the Anglo-American suggestions are sufficiently close together for him to be more likely to be able to involve the Patriotic Front by taking a somewhat firmer line and welcoming the Salisbury proposals somewhat more strongly than he has yet done, rather than giving the impression to the world that he is waiting for the approval of the Patriotic Front?

Dr. Owen: I do not think that that is the world's impression. Britain is recognised as being in a unique position. She is seen in the United Nations as the administering Power. There are limits to that, as we all know. But it puts us in the role of mediator, and that is why I think that it would be extremely unwise for us to abandon yet our present position of caution and of being prepared to mediate between all parties.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a Private Notice Question and not a statement. I shall call two more hon. Members from each side of the House and then we must move on.

Mr. Whitehead: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that he should take a further initiative in approaching the leaders of the Patriotic Front? Does he not also agree that, while it was right and proper of him to see Bishop Muzorewa and to ensure that he gets a fair hearing at the United Nations, it must be the essence of the matter to secure an agreement between the two African factions, since that is more important than an agreement signed with the illegal regime to the exclusion of the Patriotic Front?

Dr. Owen: I agree that it is important to involve the Patriotic Front. I have been attacked many times for my readiness to speak up for the Patriotic Front, but, over the last few weeks, people have seen that I was right to talk to all parties, and that continues to be my position.

Sir J. Eden: Does the Foreign Secretary continue to be unaware of the extent of Russian imperialism in Africa and the nature of its aims? Why not take this opportunity positively to welcome a step back towards sanity and understanding between the races in Africa? Why does the right hon. Gentleman not condemn outright the wanton campaign of murder deliberately conducted in the names of so-called nationalist leaders?

Dr. Owen: It is because I do understand the nature of the Soviet aims that I am not prepared to combat anti-democratic forces and Communist forces by supporting racialism and people who have, over many years, resisted the movement towards majority rule, thus allowing the degree of anger and resentment to build up that has driven black Africans to force of arms.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the most obvious and immediate effect of his taking the precipitate decision wanted by the Opposition would be to split the United States from the United Kingdom, with Great Britain supporting one group of African nationalists and the United States supporting another? My right hon. Friend has rightly stressed the importance of the


Anglo-American initiative. Is his appraisal of the Salisbury discussions the same as that of Mr. Cyrus Vance?

Dr. Owen: Yes. Mr. Vance and I have been in close touch over the weekend, as we have throughout the Anglo-American initiative. I detect no major differences of opinion between us. Of course we have to recognise; that we, with our close and trusted friend, the United States, are working within an international framework. We are also working in the United Nations and we have to take account of the legitimate views of the Organisation of African Unity.

Mr. Robert Taylor: Which of the African countries with which the right hon. Gentleman is in touch on this question has a democratically elected Government?

Dr. Owen: We can get into long discussion about which is or is not democratic, but few people would argue, for example, that Botswana is not a total democracy in the best sense of the word. Perhaps people want to make disparaging remarks about loyal members of the Commonwealth, such as Zambia and Tanzania. They all have different interpretations of the way to reach democracy, they are good friends to this country, and we should take account of the feelings of their Presidents and politicians.

WINDSCALE INQUIRY (REPORT)

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Shore): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Windscale inquiry. This related to the planning aplication by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. of 1st March 1977 to develop reprocessing facilities for irradiated oxide nuclear fuels at Windscale.
On 25th March I called in the application for my personal decision and ordered the public inquiry so as to secure a full and thorough investigation of all the important issues raised by the application. The inquiry began on 14th June and ended on 4th November. The inspector, the Hon. Mr. Justice Parker, presented his report to me on 26th January last.
At the outset I asked the inspector to examine in particular a number of issues,

which were broadly these: first, the implications of the proposed development for the safety of the public; secondly, the implications for other aspects of the national interest; thirdly, the implications for the environment of the construction and operation of the proposed development in view of measures that can be adopted under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 to control the disposal of wastes, and under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 to provide for the safety of operations; and, fourthly, other more conventional planning implications for the locality.
The inspector's report analyses in a masterly way all these issues and others that were raised by the objectors and concludes with the recommendation that outline planning permission should be granted without delay, subject to conditions. In my view, the conclusions reached by the inspector are persuasive and broadly acceptable, and under the normal procedure I would now proceed straightaway to take my final decision.
I have, however, been conscious of the strong, widespread and proper desire of right hon. and hon. Members to debate the broad issues of national and international significance which I asked the inspector to examine before a decision is made. I believe that great benefit to our democracy would flow from such a debate. This case is, indeed, unique in the issues which it raises, and I have therefore decided to proceed in a way that will enable the House to have such a debate and to be involved in this major decision.
To do so I must take an unusual course. We want a debate in which Ministers could take a full part and which would lead on to a decision without running into a protracted further process of consultation and possibly the need to reopen the inquiry. I think that this aim would be generally agreed. To achieve it, I must first dispose of the planning application in the other manner which, I am advised, will be consistent with my objective. This will be done in the form of a refusal to grant planning permission on the present application.
However, subject to the debate which my right hon. Friend will arrange before Easter, I propose to lay before Parliament shortly afterwards a special development order under Section 24 of the Town


and Country Planning Act 1971 which would, in effect, authorise the project. The order will contain the terms of a planning permission for the proposed development at Windscale, subject to conditions on the lines recommended by the inspector. The special development order, which is a Statutory Instrument, will be subject to negative resolution procedure.
I have today issued my decision letter on the planning application and published the inspector's report. Copies of both are available in the Vote Office.
In conclusion, I should like to express my gratitude to the Hon. Mr. Justice Parker and to his assessors, Sir Edward Pochin and Professor Sir Frederick Warner, for their very valuable work on the most important planning inquiries ever held. My appreciation extends not only to them but also to the parties to the inquiry for the care and time that each contributed in presenting their case and thus assisting the inspector and myself—and, indeed, the House—towards a clarification and a resolution of the issues.

Mr. Heseltine: The official Opposition were consulted about the procedure which the Secretary of State has announced and, in the exceptional circumstances, agreed to it. I ask the Secretary of State to understand that I have not seen the inspector's report or its conclusions, and that in these circumstances I obviously cannot comment on it today.
I ask the Secretary of State to confirm that there can in practice be two debates on the subject, the first being the general debate which it is the intention to arrange before Easter, and the second under the negative procedure which would follow the laying of a special development order.

Mr. William Hamilton: It is one and half hours.

Mr. Heseltine: That must be right. Finally, has the Secretary of State considered whether, in exceptional circumstances, and cases of this sort, a proper legislative procedure is required which would enable debate to take place in Parliament as a matter of course, rather than having to resort to what is in practice a device?

Mr. Shore: My reply to the hon. Gentleman's first question is "Yes". The

procedure involves a major debate, the order will then be laid and, subject to the ordinary parliamentary procedure, it could be prayed against.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we could find more satisfactory ways of conducting inquiries into these very difficult and complex matters involving the House and at the same time having a really open and thorough examination. I do not believe that we have yet reached a final and satisfactory solution. We are certainly seeking one.
I believe that the proposal that I have put to the House today, combined with the very prolonged and open inquiry that Mr. Justice Parker undertook, will ensure not only that all the parties to the inquiry have every opportunity to have their case presented and deployed but that this House will also have an opportunity to make its views heard on this important national issue.

Mr. Abse: I thank the Secretary of State not only on my own behalf but on behalf of more than 200 hon. Members who signed a motion requesting that we should have a debate before the final decision was made. The Secretary of State's response means that we have a droll position in which he is saying "No" in order that ultimately, apparently, he will be able to say "Yes".
Is it not clear, in view of the fact that our close and trusted friend the United States of America—to whom the Foreign Secretary referred a few minutes ago—has made it abundantly clear that it does not wish any reprocessing plant to proceed because of the dangers of nuclear proliferation, that we should be assured that, before the order is laid before the House, following the debate that is contemplated, there will be no implementation of it until such time as the Downing Street initiative for the international fuel cycle evaluation has completed its work? It would then be seen throughout the world that Britain had not become a hawk, sabotaging the efforts and initiatives of the United States to avoid nuclear proliferation.
Finally, since there are many who believe that a decision to move forward could be the penultimate decision to that on the fast-breeder reactor and the plutonium economy, and since that could


mean, in the opinion of many, that the next generation could be the last generation, may we have an assurance that when the order is to be laid there will be a full-scale debate? Can we further have the assurance that there will be an ample postponement after the initial debate, and that the ensuing debate will be a full-scale one, and not an attenuated debate of one and a half hours? Should it not be one in which the whole House can express its opinion, after the nation, through the efforts of the Press and the other media, has been able to indicate its opinions?

Mr. Shore: The scale of the debate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. But, of course, I believe that we shall be able to judge these things very much better after we have had the first debate, which it has already been agreed to have. I hope that the procedure will be satisfactory, whether it is droll or not. Indeed, the procedure is precisely designed to meet the kind of anxiety that my hon. Friend and many other hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed.
I do not think that it would be sensible for me to eminent on the statements made by my hon. Friend in advance of his having the opportunity to read and study the report. I think he will find evidence, observations and conclusions drawn by the inspector which do not by any means wholly support his own conclusions.

Mr. Grimond: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his decision to allow the House to have a debate on this issue. I am aware that the procedures have been agreed but I ask him two questions about them. If during the debate the Government are defeated, or the proposal is defeated, I understand that that is an end of the matter. Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention to have a free vote?
Secondly, if the House is in favour of the proposal and the report of the inquiry, I understand that the right hon. Gentleman issues a special development order. Does that short-circuit all further planning procedures? Am I right in thinking that that will not merely give outline planning permission but authorise the project? As there is some anxiety

about delay, what is the effect of this procedure on the time-scale of the project? For all I know, it may possibly speed up the process.
Lastly, who will pay for this large and expensive inquiry?

Mr. Shore: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his initial welcome. Obviously the Government will be greatly influenced by the debate that takes place in the House. In a sense, that is the purpose of having the debate. I shall not venture further into that. I believe that everyone should have the opportunity of considering what it is that Mr. Justice Parker has recommended and examining carefully his reasons for reaching the conclusion that he reaches. The SDO, when it is laid, will embody the major recommendations and findings that are within the report. As the original Parker Report gave, and as the applicants asked for, the SDO will give us outline planning permission to go ahead with the proposed Windscale project. I do not believe that the procedure that I have recommended is open to any serious criticism on the ground of delay.
No award of costs has been made, and Mr. Justice Parker has made it clear that he is not making any recommendation in that respect. Therefore, the costs of the inquiry will naturally fall to those who have taken part in it.

Mr. Palmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many, both inside and outside the House, who are concerned for Britain's industrial future will greet with relief the recommendation of the Parker inquiry? In view of the complicated procedure that is now proposed, what will be the standing of the Answer given to the House on 12th March 1976 by the Secretary of State for Energy that the Japanese contract should proceed?

Mr. Shore: I believe that once the novelty has worn off it will be seen to be not a complex procedure but a very simple one for meeting the wishes of the House.
I understand my hon. Friend's expression of relief. He has been strongly associated with the wish to see the project carried forward. It is far better to have an inquiry and a debate than for the matter simply to be decided by the planning authority without the House having an opportunity to make its contribution.
As for the Japanese contract, it has always been understood that it would not go forward until planning permission had been granted by this country, and that remains the case.

Mr. Emery: Irrespective of any views that anybody may take, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the whole House must be grateful to Mr. Justice Parker for the extensive nature of the report? In view of the considerable emotional feelings and fears about nuclear power and nuclear energy, will the right hon. Gentleman point out that over the past 15 years there has been not one fatality or serious accident due to radiation in the whole of the nuclear power industry? That is surely of significance in allaying people's fears.
Lastly, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that if the debate held before Easter proves to support the Government's view and Mr. Justice Parker's view, the order will be laid quickly so that we can proceed without any further extended delay?

Mr. Shore: Yes, it would be my intention, subject to the debate, to lay the order shortly after the debate has taken place. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has expressed his gratitude, which I am sure is shared by the whole House, to Mr. Justice Parker for the great contribution that he has made in undertaking the extremely onerous task of hearing so much exacting material over so long a period during the course of the Windscale inquiry. As for the fears that have been expressed, I believe that the report will be helpful in setting in context the risks that are involved in nuclear power compared with the risks involved in other fuel industries. I confirm what the hon. Gentleman has said about the excellent safety record that our nuclear power industry has enjoyed.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is to be a debate on this matter, and I shall call only those hon. Members who have already risen to ask a question.

Mr. Noble: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us found the original planning inquiry unsatisfactory in view of the nature of the decision? Bearing in mind the moral, environmental,

civil liberty and defence implications of the decision, does my right hon. Friend accept that we find the proposal for a further debate to be unsatisfactory? Will he take the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse)—that we should not take a decision in this country until the international negotiations are completed?

Mr. Shore: I am sorry to hear that my hon. Friend finds the planning inquiry unsatisfactory. The terms of reference of the inquiry were, in a sense, deliberately drawn widely. I believe that he will find that all the matters that properly concern him and others have been extensively examined during the 100 days of the inquiry. I do not think that he will find that any matter of substance has been omitted from the inquiry. I do not believe that the House as a whole will find the arrangements for debate to be unsatisfactory. It is my view that the House should be associated with the decision and should make its own special contribution to it. I do not believe that we should procrastinate and delay unduly in coming to a decision.

Mr. Costain: Does the Secretary of State appreciate—I am sure that he does—the special position of a Secretary of State as regards planning inquiries—namely, that he has to be as neutral as a judge? Therefore, is the right hon. Gentleman intending to take part in the debate and the vote? If that is his intention, does he not think that it will affect his position as regards future planning permissions?

Mr. Shore: I hope that my statement dealt with one of the advantages of the SDO procedure—that it relieves me of operating in this case in the quasi-judicial role which I otherwise adopt in respect of ordinary planning applications. It is by, as it were, refusing the planning application and opting for the alternative of the SDO that I am released to take part in the debate.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the third area of implication to which he referred in his statement is not exclusively Windscale's and that the planning application itself was a geographical one, the Parker inquiry not coming to conclusions about certain areas of reprocessing, and certainly not on the disposal of nuclear waste


material in areas other than those immediately associated with Windscale?
Therefore, will my right hon. Friend be particularly careful when drawing up the motion that he will put before the House for debate to ensure that we can eliminate the necessity to go through a number of separate inquiries with regard to locating sites for the disposal of nuclear waste? Whether it be by classification or other methods, this House should take the decision in principle so that we do not need any future repetition of the Parker inquiry with regard to the disposal of waste.

Mr. Shore: I am not certain that I fully understood all the implications of my hon. Friend's question. The disposal of waste is one of the matters considered in the Parker Report. It has short-term, medium-term and, indeed, very long-term implications. However, I do not think that my hon. Friend need fear that the recommendations on the disposal of waste will themselves lead to further and unnecessary inquiries.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Will the Secretary of State be good enough to clarify the planning position and procedures? Further to what he said in answer to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), in particular his references to the recommendations of Mr. Justice Parker, is the position that the SDO will embody the formal conditions binding in planning law in the planning permission granted by the SDO which, the right hon. Gentleman will accept, is an unusual procedure? Further, will it be an outline planning permission and, therefore, subject both to those conditions and to the standard conditions obtaining in respect of outline planning permission when it comes to stage 2 approval?

Mr. Shore: The application itself was for outline planning permission. Therefore, the SDO and the inspector's recommendations relate to it. The SDO will itself embody the formal conditions. They will be stated within the SDO. I hope that helps the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Forman: Will the Secretary of State accept that we welcome his decision belatedly to bring Parliament properly

into this debate? It should have been brought into the debate a long time ago. Does he also accept that there is some strength in the argument of his hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) that it would be a nonsense for the Government to go ahead with the laying of this SDO without waiting to see the results of the international nuclear fuel cycle evaluation, bearing in mind that there might be an alternative fuel cycle based on thorium and uranium which would make a nonsense of our present plans?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman had better read the report. He will find that a great deal of it is devoted to arguments connected with the international fuel cycle examinations that are now going on. I do not believe from what I have suggested that I can be accused of belatedness. After all, the examination had to be carried out and the report had to be made before it was possible to consult the House or, indeed, anyone else on the fullness of the inquiry.
The difficulty of this whole procedure is that it is always possible to come to the House at an earlier stage in a planning matter and discuss the broad policy issues involved. But I am not sure whether the House would feel satisfied—bearing in mind that it discussed the broad planning issues in the past—that it was therefore fully seized of all the facts or would feel that it was entirely right for the Secretary of State to go ahead with the planning permission thereafter.

Mr. Hooley: Will the terms of the SDO be drawn up in the light of the debate in this House or will they be based solely on the Parker recommendations?

Mr. Shore: My impression is that the House will wish to discuss the major national and international questions that arise from the Windscale inquiry. I would be surprised if the House wished to devote a great deal of its time to the more detailed and technical matters relating to the construction of the plant. Even if it were to do so, I would not wish to say in advance whether the contributions made on this subject would be such as to make me promise to make changes in the anticipated terms of the SDO.

Mr. David Mitchell: Does the report cover the effect of high explosive attack on the plant? Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that if such an eventuality were to occur it would not lead automatically to a national disaster?

Mr. Shore: I have no reason to believe that the danger of high explosive attack on the proposed Windscale plant would be greater than on other installations such as the Magnox reprocessing plant or any of our other nuclear power installations. Therefore, I cannot help the hon. Gentleman in that regard, but I would advise him to read the report.

Mr. Younger: Since the Secretary of State is holding up his decision until after further debate has taken place, would it not also be right to hold up any further progress on the application for planning permission for sites for nuclear dumping, which is causing great concern in South-West Scotland and several other parts of the country?

Mr. Shore: I am aware of no applications with regard to sites for nuclear dumping. What I am aware of is a research programme that is looking at particular formations as to their possible suitability for the future.

Mr. Raison: Will the Secretary of State think carefully about the answer that he has just given to his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley)? Will he accept that, if during the course of the debate there seems reason to believe that the House or the public are not happy about all the Parker proposals, it will be possible to debate the SDO when it finally comes before the House for decision? Can he hold out any hope for bodies such as the Town and Country Planning Association, which have had to spend a lot of money giving evidence to this inquiry and have found it a heavy burden to bear?

Mr. Shore: I shall consider further—perhaps for future inquiries—the implications of a protracted inquiry of this kind and the cost that it imposes on those taking part. I would not wish to make any promise about that at present. As to what might emerge from the debate with regard to the details of the planning application, I think I had better rest at the moment and say that I shall consider this in the light of the debate itself.

NORTHERN IRELAND (SECURITY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn.]

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State I would remind hon. Members that this is a short debate. Therefore, I want the House to know that I propose to give a clear priority to those hon. Members who represent the Province of Ulster directly in this House.
I hope the House will allow me to put on record my deep gratitude to the Northern Ireland Office, to right hon. and hon. Members from Northern Ireland and to the people of Northern Ireland for their courtesy to me when I visited them at the weekend.

4.18 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Roy Mason): It is only a short time since I made a statement to the House about the tragic death of 12 people in a cowardly and murderous attack on the La Mon House restaurant. Since then four members of the security forces have been killed by the terrorists. It is understandable that these deaths should lead to condemnation, dismay and concern throughout the community. I myself in my statement on the La Mon House disaster expressed my deep revulsion. But despite the emotions raised there was an overriding restraint in word and deed on the part of all responsible people, especially in the Province of Northern Ireland.
The Provisional IRA has conspicuously failed in carrying out these attacks to create sectarian strife and I hope that the community will continue to show the good sense to resist any such efforts to turn neighbour against neighbour.
There has been a magnificent response to the fund set up by the Castlereagh District Council for the relief of the victims of that tragedy. I can reassure the House that there will be no reductions in the amount of compensation paid to people who benefit from the compassion and generosity of their fellow citizens.
I quite understand how incidents such as these unsettle the community and cause some people to question the adequacy of


our security policy. I am never complacent about the security situation and for me there can never be an acceptable level of violence. But I believe that we must exercise reason, retrain from ill-considered reaction, and maintain the consistent security policy necessary to ensure that that relentless pressure is brought to bear against the terrorists.
It is of the utmost importance that the level of activity on the part of the security forces should be sustained at the highest level and that the rate of attrition against criminals should be vigorously maintained. I have warned on a number of occasions, and I take this opportunity of warning again, that, although the tide of public opinion has turned against terrorists, we have to be aware that they retain the capacity to indulge in acts of indiscriminate violence.
Tragic incidents of this sort can obscure, and are sometimes intended to obscure, the general picture in Northern Ireland. The level of violence was reduced in the latter half of last year. The number of casualties, the number of bomb incidents and the number of shootings and woundings had shown a marked reduction. This was an encouraging trend and was widely welcomed. But there could be no question of the Government responding by slackening their effort against the terrorists. Indeed, the reverse is true. Substantial efforts have been made, and will continue to be made, to intensify our security effort. Much has been done, and I shall have more to say about that later.
A run of terrorist incidents tends to obscure the fact that over the past two years the security forces have made real inroads into the terrorists' resources. In 1976, some 1,200 terrorists were charged; in 1977 it was more than 1,400. In 1976, some 1,200 terrorists were convicted of terrorist offences; in 1977, it was 1,100. Of those, nearly 1,000 received prison sentences, 86 of them for life and 266 more for 10 years or more. This is a demonstration to all terrorists of the relentless pressure of the forces of law and order and the legal process.
In spite of this, it is almost inevitable that from time to time, and particularly in the light of the recent incident, some people should demand the introduction of more Draconian measures to deal with terrorism. I fully understand the emotion which lies behind such demands,

but I believe that the great majority of the community in Northern Ireland recognise and accept the need to act through the due process of law. It is for the Parliament of the United Kingdom to determine what is the law. It is for the courts, where necessary, to interpret it. That has been the basis of our security policy and the record of the past year, in particular in terms of criminals brought before the courts and convicted on proper evidence, is in my view complete justification for our belief that this is the right way forward.
It is the way which shows criminals being treated as criminals, for everyone to see, not least the criminals themselves. It is the way which has driven a wedge between those criminals and the community, so that they are denied the popular support for which they crave. During 1977, there were no fewer than 128 cases of people having their kneecaps shot through. These are deeds of desperation by men who have to resort to a policy of persecution of their own people—with the naked threat "stand by us or else".

Mr. James Kilfedder: The right hon. Gentleman talks about the lack of popular support for the Provisional IRA, but is he not aware that, strange as it may seem, about 2,000 people turned out for the funeral of a Provisional IRA terrorist who was shot by the Army recently and that a representative of the SDLP demanded an inquiry into the shooting as human life was sacred? Is that not a demonstration of popular support?

Mr. Mason: There were a number of factors involved. When there is a death in a family in a close-knit community, many people feel emotionally moved and wish to be involved and to pay their last respects. It is also a fact that there is intimidation in some of these small communities and people would be expected to be seen at the funeral; otherwise they might be made to suffer.
In Northern Ireland the security policy within which the forces of law and order operate is not something conjured out of the air. It is arrived at, after detailed advice from, and consultations with, the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the General Officer Commanding, with their highly skilled and professional staffs. Our policy in


Northern Ireland is an agreed policy and there is no question of political restraint or inhibition on the operational activities of the RUC or of the Army—including the UDR—who are supporting the police in their task of upholding the law.
Within this policy, the methods and tactics of the security forces are continually kept under review. The techniques that were needed to control large, aggressive crowds on the streets are not the ones to deal with smaller terrorist groups who have lost support from the community. Much of the energy of the security forces is now directed to getting information which can be used as evidence in court to send terrorists to gaol. This requires the closest relationships between the police and the Army in the area of intelligence. These links have been developed and are being further strengthened.
The other major objective is preventive. As long as the terrorists remain at large, measures must be taken by vehicle checks and by the use of other measures not necessarily apparent to the public. I can assure the House that great effort is put into this and that has a considerable deterrent effect. Like intelligence, it requires a high degree of co-operation among the various arms of the security forces if there is not to be wasted effort. And of course, the maximum use of intelligence itself has to be applied in this operational area. Both at the top and and at the various command levels the most patient attention has been and is being given to improving the security force links. This is the very fabric of success in anti-terrorist operations.
There is much else besides which we have been doing to intensify the pressure on the terrorists by further strengthening the security forces. The strength of the RUC is steadily increasing and 1976 had been the best year ever for recruiting. That record was beaten comfortably in 1977. There could be no better evidence of the determination of the Northern Ireland community to resist the threat in its midst.
Further progress has been made to ensure that the RUC has the equipment which it needs. A total of 463 of the 1,000 M1 carbines are now in service and other weapon requirements are being considered. We have already seen the

effectiveness of the steel-reinforced Hotspur Land Rover in its defence against high-velocity weapons. There are now several of these hardened Land Rovers in each of the more exposed police divisions. A further 50 have been ordered, and we are putting all our weight behind their early delivery.
In order that the RUC should be in the best possible position to fulfil its leading role, I have strengthened its command structure by authorising the establishment of an extra 32 senior posts. These relate especially to the border divisions, but also elsewhere in the Province where the direction of operations required reinforcement.
I informed the House in December that a further resident battalion would be added to the garrison in Northern Ireland during 1978. This unit will be arriving in September. I am in no doubt about the operational value of resident units; they are able to achieve a greater measure of continuity and experience than is possible for a unit on the four-month operational quota.
Progress has been maintained in building up the capability to undertake covert operations. As well as the SAS, which is operating throughout the Province, every major unit now has an impressive measure of skill in covert surveillance, and that is by no means the limit of what can be done and is being done in this very important field.
Nor is there any lack of resolve to apply the normal police practice of taking in and questioning suspects when there are good operational reasons for doing so. At the end of last year, the RUC twice arrested substantial groups of people whom they believed might be able to assist them with their inquiries into subversive activities, and those investigations continue.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a strong body of opinion that people who have been taken into custody or have served prison sentences and been released on parole are becoming involved in terrorism again? Could he also comment on the belief that people released from Long Kesh have been involved in atrocities?

Mr. Mason: There are cases, of course, of reinvolvement, but I am advised that


the percentage of those is small. Secondly, if they are reinvolved they must be aware that, apart from the sentence that they receive, they have added on the total remission from their previous sentences, which acts also as a deterrent.
In the wake of the La Mon House outrage a total of 43 persons were arrested for interview. As a result of these interviews nine people have been charged with offences ranging from murder to membership of an illegal organisation.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister tell us whether any of those persons have been charged with the actual La Mon House massacre?

Mr. Mason: I was going to say to the House and to the hon. Gentleman that none of those charges relates to the La Mon House bombing, but intensive investigations are continuing with a view to bringing those responsible before the courts. I have already referred to the restraint shown by the vast majority of the community in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Clement Freud: Does the Secretary of State not agree that the worst part of this matter is that no member of the Northern Ireland community has come forward to say anything about the perpetrators of the La Mon House outrage?

Mr. Mason: I do not know to what extent the information had been given to the Chief Constable flowing from the La Mon House massacre. Undoubtedly, because of the special campaign that the RUC carried out, a tremendous amount of information was produced. It is doubtful whether the persons concerned remain within the Province. Because of the pressure that was brought to bear, they could easily have escaped across the border.
I have referred to the restraint shown by the vast majority of the community in Northern Ireland. That restraint, which deserves the highest praise, is an important factor in enabling the security forces to get an with the task of preventing violence and tracing those responsible for criminal acts.
The restraint of the community also demonstrates to the Provisional IRA that it is not succeeding in its attempts to disrupt the gradual return to normal life

in the Province. But I would echo the words of the Chief Constable. Passive restraint by itself is not enough, and any Government and any police force have the right to expect the wholehearted cooperation of all sections of the community in their fight against the criminals.
There are still a number of people who call for the reintroduction of capital punishment in the wake of the La Mon House massacre or detention or both. I think, therefore, that it is right that I should indicate to the House my views on these issues. Neither step commends itself to me. Such measures have in the past proved more of a hindrance than a help in the maintenance of the law. I will not encourage the reintroduction of capital punishment in Northern Ireland. There is no evidence to suggest that hanging would be a deterrent and the serious risk of creating martyrs out of both Republican and Loyalist para-militaries should not be underrated. It could be said that to fight and die for a cause is better than languishing in goal for life with no prospect, if it is a life sentence, of remission, and as far as I am concerned—this is true of Her Majesty's Government and the Opposition—no chance of amnesty, either.
I have retained, but I hope I shall never have to use, the powers of detention. There are sound practical arguments against the exercise of these powers. The Provisional IRA and other paramilitary organisations and the like would like nothing better than to be able to claim that they were being treated like political prisoners. The whole nature of their campaign and support for it could change radically if they were able to politicise themselves in this way. In addition, I believe the introduction of detention, however limited, would alienate large sections of the community, which would lead in turn to a deterioration in the relationship between them and the forces of law and order.
No police service can function adequately within a hostile community. The policeman on his beat or on his regular patrol relies heavily upon his knowledge of the local scene and upon his relationship with the local community to carry out his task of serving that community.
I have no doubt whatever that the use of the due process of law, the arresting, charging and convicting through the


courts of those guilty of terrorist acts and the strict observance of the law by those responsible for its implementation, are the only way to restore and maintain respect for the rule of law itself.
Having said that, let me make it quite clear that those who are convicted will serve their sentences. I have said repeatedly before, and I underline it in this House, that there will be no amnesty in Northern Ireland. Those who seek to subvert the democratic process in Northern Ireland by acts of criminal violence will pay the full penalty of the law.
There are those who seek to have themselves regarded, despite their commission of very serious crimes, as political prisoners. They refuse to conform to prison rules, in many cases under the influence or instructions of others who cynically plan crime but keep their hands clean and stay out of prison. Those people within prison who fail to conform are simply sentencing themselves to longer gaol terms. For each day they protest, they lose a full day's remission and, if they go on long enough, they lose all their remission—and all to no purpose, because their hopes of earlier release through amnesty will never be realised.
Any review of the security situation in Northern Ireland must take account of the significance of the Republic in geographical, security and political terms. It remains essential that we should engage the co-operation of the authorities in the Irish Republic in countering the terrorism of the IRA. Mr. Lynch justly said on 18th February that it was the duty of all people on both sides of the border to root out this terrible evil of Provisional IRA terrorism. In our contacts with Irish Ministers and officials we continue to stress our view of the situation and to discuss ways of going about this urgent task together.
I should pay tribute to the efforts of the Southern authorities in largely putting a stop to the leakage of commercial explosive from factories and other sources in the Republic moving into the hands of terrorists. The terrorists themselves do not regard the border as a boundary. There are groups who spend most of their time south of the border and make frequent rapid forays into the North to

attack the security forces and escape back again.
But the border is more than a base line for local incidents, for there are other groups who spend more protracted periods, generally deeper into the heart of Northern Ireland, attacking where they can and often living rough, eventually withdrawing for recuperation and resupply to the other side of the border. We also know of cases where terrorists wounded in the North—and not necessarily close to the border—have gone South for medical treatment. Much of the home-made explosive which the Provisionals have been forced to use comes from sources in the Republic, and many of their weapons come through the Republic.
I give these examples to show that cross-border terrorism is not simply a matter of the odd instance of shooting across the border but an ingredient in some way or other of the bulk of the terrorist violence that goes on in the North—and, for that matter, in the South. As I said, the terrorist is not concerned with boundaries.

Mr. John Watkinson: Will my right hon. Friend enlarge upon the statement that Mr. Lynch made recently in which he said:
The border is not a major security problem now. About 2 per cent. of violence in the North has any direct connection with it. This is not my assessment but that which was officially supplied by the British authorities."?

Mr. Mason: I can first inform my hon. Friend and the House that authorities in the Republic have been fully informed that the 2 per cent. figure to which Mr. Lynch referred is wrong. I also stated that quite clearly in the statement that I made recently in the House. On a very narrow definition of an incident of shots across the border or of a terrorist being captured or injured on the border, it would be a small percentage, but the use of the border for terrorist activities in the North shows a very much higher percentage.
Where the cross-border terrorist has been identified, we shall use to the full the extra-territorial jurisdiction provisions which we have negotiated in the absence of normal extradition arrangements, but the main task of surveillance, prevention


and detection must depend on practical co-operation between the two police forces. An encouraging measure of progress has been made in establishing both the machinery and the practice of co-operation between the RUC and the Garda, and every effort needs to be made to develop it further.
The emphasis in what I have been saying has been upon security. But in relation to Northern Ireland, I have emphasised particularly that the problem is not only one of security. In a complex and evolving situation it is impossible to deal with the components of the problem as if they had clear and defined limits. Northern Ireland presents a mixture of social, economic political and security considerations which are difficult to disentangle.
On security, we control policy and we can also intensify our efforts and make tactical changes when necessary. On the economy, much is in our hands and we have done much to soften the impact on the Province of difficult economic circumstances. We have also been doing much to improve the conditions of areas of special need.
But in the matter of politics we are to a much greater extent dependent on the attitudes of the major parties within Northern Ireland. As the House will be aware, at the end of last year I judged it right to ask those parties to discuss with me and my officials a framework within which I believe that political progress can be made. Preliminary talks have taken place and I and my officials are ready to resume the talks. The road is clear, provided there is a willingness amongst the parties to make progress.
I realise that the parties may feel that progress is difficult at the present time. Certainly the atmosphere in Northern Ireland has changed markedly since the spectre of British withdrawal has been raised again. The prospect of a General Election in the United Kingdom tends to lead the political parties in Northern Ireland to think more about their long-term aspirations and party groupings and less about the prospects for political movement in the near future. In addition, any worries about the security situation leads to strains within the community which make party political talks even more difficult.
I am disappointed that these fears and misapprehensions have apparently created road blocks on the path to progress, because I was hopeful at the end of last year that we could move forward. I still believe that to be possible if the political parties are prepared to talk again.
There may be a danger that some people will be tempted to use the present situation as an excuse to step outside accepted political and democratic channels in an attempt to bring pressure on the Government and Parliament to accept one solution or another. I do not believe that any of us in this House would condone that.
That brings me back to the Provisional IRA whose aim is to create anarchy and the demise of democratic government north and south of the border in Ireland. It is very important that we should get the activities and potential into clear perspective. The Provisional IRA has regrouped in the face of the attrition of the last year and a hard core of callous activists seem to be prepared to go on with their senseless acts against the community. But the Provisional IRA is operating in isolation, hated and shunned by the vast majority of the people of the Province who have totally rejected its philosophy and tactics. The plain fact is that it is on the road to nowhere. It must now realise that the Government will not compromise with it and that no right-thinking person supports it or even regards it as having any genuine political aims.
Therefore, to the people of Northern Ireland let me stress that there is no acceptable level of violence. There will be no amnesty. Terrorists will be treated as criminals, relentlessly pursued and brought to justice. The Government have the resolution, the determination and the will to stamp out violence and bring back peace to Northern Ireland. In this task I know that we can rely on the courage, resilience and support of the people of Northern Ireland.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: I am sure that the House will be grateful to the Secretary of State for his account of the situation in Northern Ireland. We welcome his intention to intensify the work of the security forces. We also welcome the continued training of the security forces on covert surveillance, as he


described it, though we intend to press the Government on a number of issues in that connection.
We wish the Chief Constable success in his investigation into the cowardly and disgraceful La Mon House massacre, to which the Secretary of State referred in the House on 20th February. As he said, passive restraint is not enough.
I am glad that there is to be no chance of an amnesty under this Government or, as the Secretary of State said, under a Conservative Government. That should be repeated every time we discuss security. I am also glad that these criminals will have to pay the full penalty of the law for what they have done.

Mr. Kilfedder: Were not such assurances given from these Dispatch Boxes to the unfortunate people of Kenya who were humiliated by the Mau-Mau? But subsequently those evil men were welcomed by politicians here who had earlier condemned them, and they were given an amnesty.

Mr. Neave: The hon. Gentleman is extremely voluble about these matters. I shall not talk about the Mau-Mau. I am on Northern Ireland now.

Mr. Kilfedder: I am talking about Northern Ireland.

Mr. Neave: The House will welcome what the Secretary of State said about cross-border terrorism. I hope that he will speak frankly to Mr. Jack Lynch about these matters in the near future. I was glad that the right hon. Gentleman said that the 2 per cent. figure to which Mr. Lynch referred was wrong. The border is widely used to bring misery and death to Northern Ireland on numerous occasions. I should like to refer to the economy, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, in the debate later today on the Appropriation Order.
We should like to discuss with the Secretary of State political developments in Northern Ireland and, in particular, our scheme for a locally elected body when we have an opportunity in the near future.
The Secretary of State recorded the achievements of the security forces in 1976 and 1977. The Provisional IRA regard the latest killings, according to its

newspaper the Republican News, as its answer to the right hon. Gentleman and as its particular brand of comment on the policy of Mr. Lynch. But, as the Secretary of State said, the IRA has failed to create sectarian strife. We must keep it that way.
I think that we need a fresh initiative. We need to go over to the offensive to a greater extent than we have done before, even though we use civilised methods of justice. I confirm the Opposition's view on that matter.
We have tried most things in Northern Ireland in the last eight years. We owe a great deal to the peace campaign and the community work that it has done. But there is one fundamental task in Northern Ireland—to prevent terrorism escalating into full-scale civil war. So far we have been able to do that. With the aid of the British Army, the Ulster Defence Regiment and the RUC, we have managed to contain the situation. But I ask whether the present low-intensity operations are any longer adequate to deal with what faces us now in Northern Ireland. The Provisionals now have access to sophisticated weaponry. We need to consider whether we should deal with them in kind.
Wild talk advocating British withdrawal is effectively disposed of in a leading article in The Times today, as are the confused discussions about Irish unity. The writer of the article states:
It is extraordinary that any Irishman should so misread his own history as to suppose that one million people in Ulster would automatically be reconciled to the inevitability of Irish reunification by one word from a British Government.
It is the British presence in Northern Ireland, on the contrary, in the face of many sacrifices by our soldiers and police, which has saved the Republic from being drawn into conflict in the North. These soldiers are not thanked by Dublin. I hope that they will be one day. It is this that makes the savage criticism of the security forces by Dublin politicians and the Irish Press so hard to bear. It is this which makes it far harder to achieve that which the Government and the Opposition wish to achieve—the elected local body which was referred to in the London talks in September which Mr. Lynch attended. I do not despair of finding an answer.
For the Republic, peace in Ireland depends on the ordinary soldier and policeman serving in the North and upon the greater willingness of the three major politicial parties in Dublin to assist the Secretary of State in bringing to justice the murderers who find refuge in their territory.
As I say, I hope that the Secretary of State will speak frankly to Mr. Lynch. I am sure that the Secretary of State, like myself, wishes to see an improvement in Anglo-Irish relations, but there must be a two-way approach to the problem, and that generally concerns the situation on the border.
Today we should remember Rifleman Nicholas Smith, aged 20, who was killed near Crossmaglen by a booby-trap on Saturday. Without him and his friends, as the Daily Express remarks today.
Northern Ireland would face more terrible dangers ".
Rifleman Smith died to preserve the liberties of Ireland, not only of the North.
I said that a new initiative is now needed. I hope that we shall hear from the Secretary of State more about the new role of the security forces. He said that this was being kept under review. I am not clear what is the Government's policy towards terrorism as such. Are low intensity operations enough? It is difficult for an Opposition, especially when a fundamentally bipartisan approach is taken, to spell out the details.
We must increase further the Army's anti-terrorist role. We know the difficulties involved in using the Army as a substitute police force and trying to defeat ruthless armed insurgents according to civilised rules which the terrorists do not acknowledge. All this has to be done under the spotlight of national and international television, which generally gives publicity to those whose main interest is to take human life, in a most cowardly way.
I do not believe that the Army should function strictly as a constabulary in khaki. In asking for more offensive tactics, I do not disagree with Northern Ireland Members about the role of local forces, as The Guardian correspondent said on the "Today" programme this morning. The UDR and the RUC clearly remain an essential key to maintaining order. But the role of the security forces

in general has to be reassessed, especially in the light of the new weapons used by the Provisional IRA.
The guerrilla war in Northern Ireland should be fought with guerrilla tactics, although these differ between rural and urban areas. This has not been seen as far as I should like it to be a specialist job for the Army in giving support to the UDR and RUC.
The future lies in putting extreme pressure on the terrorists through troops who are trained, as they are being trained, to pick off the gangsters on their escape routes, at their arms caches and in their safe houses. There may be 100 or 200 really hard men, now well armed, who are known to our intelligence services. It is these people whom we have to get, and only special service troops can do it.
The Secretary of State should not be deterred by comments on the BBC news on Saturday about the possible retaliation by the terrorists for operations by the SAS Regiment. If the Secretary of State is deterred, he will never achieve results against a formidable threat. That is not to say that he should not endeavour to arrest these terrorists and bring them before the courts as he has in the past, but in 1977, when good results were obtained, he was not dealing with people armed with the M60 machine gun.
I suggest that there should be increased offensive under-cover operations. According to the latest Defence Estimates, a full squadron of the SAS is operating in Northern Ireland. It should be reinforced partly by training other units. It should comprise a new anti-terrorist force to be stationed in Northern Ireland until peace is restored. That was what the Secretary of State said in his speech.
I hope that the objections of past years to such a force in Army circles will be reconsidered. We have in mind the safety of people in Northern Ireland, and they want to see us go and get these murderers and bring them to peace.

Mr. Tom Litterick: I know that the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) does not want to be misunderstood. I have been listening carefully and I had the impression that he was suggesting a "shoot on sight" policy based on ID photographs handed to security troops. Is that what the hon. Member is advocating?

Mr. Neave: I said nothing about shooting on sight. The right way to catch these men is at safe houses, at their arms caches and on their escape routes. That is what the Army is doing. I said nothing about a "shoot on sight" policy.
I quote from a leading article in today's Daily Telegraph. It states:
The very least that is now required is the continual and conspicuous presence of security forces in IRA strongholds.
That is my answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick). The article continues:
plus thorough and even random searches in these areas.
That should be possible.

Mr. Mason: It is not possible to give the House all the information. If I did, I should deprive other hon. Members from taking part in the debate. A lot of searching goes on. In the first two months of this year, the Army carried out 4,686 planned searches of occupied and unoccupied premises. It found 45 weapons, 6,000 rounds of ammunition and over 100 lbs. of explosives. Therefore, searching is going on.

Mr. Neave: One of the intentions of these debates is to reassure the people of Northern Ireland about these searches. The searches should be conducted so as to make the future task of the RUC easier. The next and perhaps the most important immediate job is to find and capture from the Provisional IRA these M60 machine guns and the improved explosives that are in its possession.
The Secretary of State warned the House and the country to expect further outbursts of terrorist violence this year. He said:
Inevitably there will be occasional shows of strength but the general and accepted view in Northern Ireland is that this cannot be sustained".—[Official Report, 8th December 1977; Vol. 940, c. 1686.]
It could be that the intensification of violence which has occurred since the start of the year represents no more than a temporary setback and no more than a temporary lull which descended during the latter part of 1977. However, there are powerful reasons for believing that the terrible events of recent weeks indicate that a new and highly dangerous phase in

the terrorist campaign has begun. We must recognise this as a possibility.
One of the most powerful reasons for deep anxiety is the arrival in Ireland of the American-made M60 machine gun, which has added a new dimension to the security problem. The Secretary of State recognised this last Question Time. The M60 is a particularly lethal weapon. It is capable of firing 550 rounds a minute. It is generally accepted that the IRA has at least six of these weapons and probably more than that. Last week a soldier was shot by an M60 in Belfast. According to The Economist, an M60 was fired at the helicopter in which the officer was travelling on 12th February. I hope that the Minister will tell us more about that incident, although I understand that security matters are involved. At the moment the British Army does not have this weapon, but our NATO allies are equipped with it. It could be made available to the security forces in Northern Ireland.
The Times this morning—perhaps the Minister of State can comment on this, because I do not know whether it is correct—claims that the use of the M60 has upset the balance of weaponry between the security forces and the terrorists in Northern Ireland. There has been a great deal of speculation about the route by which the M60 reached the IRA. It seems probable that Antwerp and Dublin form links in a chain connecting the IRA with subversive forces in the Middle East. Another possibility is that a Northern Ireland port was used. This was a suggestion from the Repubic itself. What is clear is that a new arms route has been established which must be discovered and destroyed. In addition, the training grounds where the terrorists have gained proficiency in the use of these new weapons must be located. I am told from Dublin sources that they are not in the Republic. If they are not there, where are they? I hope that the Minister of State will comment on this.
Here, as in other security problems, patient and skilled intelligence work is required on the part of our security forces. We have to face the prospect that, at the moment, an Army patrol on the streets of Belfast could be fired on and several men killed, instead of only one as happened the other day, by a burst of fire from an M60. The M60 has obviously stirred the hopes of victory of the IRA.


Those who read the Republican News will have seen pictures of the M60 with the proud caption, which we have heard before from other sources:
Political power grows from the barrel of a gun.
Evidently that is what the IRA feels about its new-found armoury. It has given some confidence, which also stems from the fact it has new, tightly organised cells, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. These almost certainly lie on the Republic side of the border, as the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker)—an expert on the border situation—said in the House on 20th February. There have been reports that around 100 Provisionals stand poised to cross the border at a moment's notice.
Great concern was expressed when the right hon. Gentleman made his statement at La Mon House about the role of the UDR now that the security situation has worsened. At the moment, it provides the main military support for the police in 11 RUC divisions. There are some in Northern Ireland who feel that the Government should ultimately review their policy of transferring the main burden of responsibility from the Army to the UDR. One can agree with that principle, but this must surely be related to the actual threat which we face in an area.
I have already called on the Secretary of State to give serious attention to the request for a revision of strategy, at least in the short term, so that the lives of members of the UDR are not placed in greater jeopardy than is absolutely essential. In view of the suggestions made in the BBC "Today" broadcast this morning, we reaffirm our strongly held belief that the UDR and police must form the backbone of security in Northern Ireland.
The latest security statistics must heighten anxiety and increase fears that the IRA's latest offensive is no mere flash in the pan. The death toll for the year so far now stands at 25, exceeding the total for the whole of the past five months of last year. Must there not be some serious doubt about whether the tide has really turned? The right hon. Gentleman used that phrase. I think it is rather unwise to use it at the present stage.
We agree with the Secretary of State that it would not be appropriate to re-

introduce detention at this stage. The arguments for and against this method are well known. They have been rehearsed on many occasions, not only in recent years but over the last century. I shall not repeat them. I would much rather see the right hon. Gentleman and his military colleagues make a sweeping attack on known terrorists in their lairs and secure a change of attitude on the part of the Administration of Mr. Lynch. If the right hon. Gentleman requires additional powers at any time to crush terrorism or to make changes in the law, he will no doubt come to the House, when they can be debated and fully considered. He could surely explore the possibility of mandatory sentences for the most serious terrorist crimes.
I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman quash the rumours that are rife in Northern Ireland about a rather relaxed attitude to remission. He publicised some of the details about terrorists released on remission. In answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight), the right hon. Gentleman said that the percentage was small. No doubt hon. Members will wish to continue to press this point.
I conclude with a reference to the Provisional Sinn Fein. This organisation and the Provisional IRA are now so closely associated that they are virtually indistinguishable. Many people are bound to feel, as the Secretary of State realises, that the Provisional Sinn Fein should be treated in exactly the same way as the Provisional IRA. So far, it has not been proscribed to allow Republican elements in Northern Ireland to take part in politics and contest elections under its auspices. But Republicans have other organisations. They have not in recent years fought elections on the Sinn Fein platform.
The Government should explain fully why the Provisional Sinn Fein is allowed to go on affronting virtually the whole community in Northern Ireland by its very existence, as a lawful party dedicated to overthrowing the State, with access to radio and television to help it in publicity for its subversion. This does not make sense to the ordinary citizen. The Government must make an early decision. It is surely crazy to allow


spokesmen for terrorists, out to destroy the State, to enjoy all the advantages of broadcasting their message of hatred to inspire a group of militants to commit murder.
After eight years of bloodshed, for God's sake let us have some realism about this. We should like to hear from the Minister of State, in reply, whether the Government consider the Provisional Sinn Fein to be a legitimate political party or, as Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien has said,
a public relations agency for a murder gang".
If liberty is to survive in Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom must go over to the attack. If the Government can will the means, I believe that the people will support them.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I wonder whether I might be permitted to say how much satisfaction has been given to the people of Northern Ireland of all shades of opinion by your visit, Mr. Speaker, to the Province last weekend. Hitherto they had not shared in the privilege which is ours, namely, of experiencing at first hand those qualities of yours which enable you to raise the minds of men to higher things. Your warm-hearted sincerity in the course of your visit evoked a ready response. You have left a lasting impression on the minds of all the people of Northern Ireland and have provided them with much-needed reassurance.
In my first speech in this House on 15th February 1971 I said that in Northern Ireland
we are now seeing for the first time in Western Europe a demonstration of urban guerrilla warfare."—[Official Report, 15th February 1971; Vol. 811, c. 1223.]
At that time it was not particularly fashionable to take seriously anything said by Ulster Unionists because the publicity industry had gone to far too much trouble to produce all manner of reasons and explanations to permit those explanations to be upset by untidy influences like the truth. The industry had convinced itself and others that the causes of the unrest, as it was then called, were bad housing, unemployment and the denial of local government votes to non-ratepayers.
By 1972 the publicity industry had persuaded the British Government and Parliament to take control so that violence would be automatically ended. I well remember the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) asking a leading member of the Administration at that time what was the object of the exercise. The reply was not, as might be imagined, to provide better government, since no fault could be found in the former system. Instead the hon. Member was told that the object was to end the violence.
The abolition of Stormont was regarded by the IRA as a back-dated award which did absolutely nothing to placate it. The creation of a power-sharing Executive in due course coincided with an increase in terrorist activity.
By 1975 the original theories about the cause of violence looked a little tattered and it became necessary to produce and invent new ones. The favoured choice was the denial of unification of Ireland. This, believe it or not, has survived well into the present term of office of the Lynch Government. Indeed, it was given a great degree of credibility by Mr. Lynch and certain incautious clerics.
It was not until the past few weeks that the real nature and the true objectives of the Provisional IRA became brutally plain even to many former sympathisers. At long last it has been recognised and realised that a united Ireland as envisaged by the Provisional IRA would be a very different thing from the sentimental dreams of many and various friends of Ireland. The Provisional IRA would not stop at removing democratic government from the North. Within a year it would remove every vestige of parliamentary government from Dublin as well. It makes no attempt to conceal its aims and anyone in the House who refuses to face the facts condemns the whole of Ireland and its people to untold suffering and misery.
If any lingering doubts have remained, they should have been dispelled by yesterday's condemnation of the Provisional IRA by the president of the Official Sinn Fein, who is not any kind of Castle Catholic. His statement reads as follows:
It was all of Ireland which was shaken. The Provos are engaged in a war against the Irish people.
On the previous Sunday thousands of Roman Catholics responded to the call of


their bishops for special prayers and a resolve to end' the killing. In this they were joined by the Protestant churches in Northern Ireland, but the Provisional IRA contemptuously rejected the pleas and ensured that on that very day violence continued and was increased and stepped up in the course of the succeeding week.
The parting of the ways must surely now have come. The Provisional IRA, as the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) said, is now seen to be the enemy of all political and religious institutions throughout the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. In the British Isles, the full weight of security forces and the instruments of law enforcement must be mobilised if both islands are to be spared further acts of brutality and villainy. From now on there must be no hiding place and no breathing space for thugs whose declared aim is the destruction of civilisation itself.
It follows that there must be no holding back on the part of the Government of the Irish Republic. In the face of the common danger they must step up co-operation with the security forces of the United Kingdom. Secondly, terrorists must be treated as the criminals they are and their extradition granted as automatically as would be the case elsewhere in Western Europe.
Her Majesty's Government are not without the weapons to influence the Government of the Irish Republic in this matter, and responsible Irish citizens in Great Britain must do all they can to persuade the Dublin Government that such a course would be in their common interest.
During exchanges in the House which followed the Secretary of State's statement on the Le Mon bombing the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) spoke of the great need to get terrorists into court on criminal charges and put them behind bars. I am sure I speak for all right hon. and hon. Members when I endorse the hon. Member's sentiment and equally so when I pay tribute to the growing success of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in bringing cases before the courts.
However, it is in this respect that I wish to draw attention to an area of very grave concern in Northern Ireland. A belief of many in the Province and to which I myself subscribe is that sentences

imposed on many of those brought before the courts neither fit the crime for which they are convicted nor serve to deter others from engaging in terrorist and criminal activity.
First, it is my contention that persons convicted in connection with the present insurrection should be denied any remission of sentence. I am well aware of the views and arguments on this subject which pertain in enlightened society. Sooner or later, however, it must be understood that such views and arguments are without relevance in the context of Northern Ireland.
If the resolve of Government to defeat this conspiracy is to be demonstrated and if the effort and the lives of the security forces are not to be wasted, those convicted by the courts must be subject to sentences of the utmost severity and they must be brought to know that the sentence passed by the courts is the sentence that they will serve.
To that end I would further suggest that the time has now come for the Government to have regard to the spirit of judgments passed by members of the judiciary in Northern Ireland, to strengthen the hands of the courts, and to introduce forthwith mandatory minimum prison sentences for all terrorist and terrorist-related offences.
Given the circumstances prevailing in our Province, I feel justified in saying that the present provisions for the treatment of offenders are utterly absurd. Certainly nothing could be more absurd than the position of those convicted of the worst crime in the book, namely, murder. Such persons, excluding those sentenced to a recommended minimum sentence, may, as I understand it, have their sentences reviewed after seven years, and certainly after nine years. So it is that many in this category are released after periods in prison which bear absolutely no relation to the terms of the sentence passed by the court, namely, life imprisonment.
Again I am aware of the thinking and the theory in these matters which presently pertains, and again I must repeat that, whatever the merits of such provisions and ideals in normal circumstances, against the background and the circumstances in Northern Ireland they are not merely absurd but positively dangerous.
Those charged with murder in Northern Ireland know well the difference between "life" and "recommended" sentences. It is the desire to get away with a life sentence rather than any sense of guilt or remorse which is the explanation for the ever-increasing numbers of guilty pleas now being entered.
I use the term "get away with a life sentence" quite deliberately, for I want the House clearly to understand that in many instances for a man to receive a life sentence is regarded both by him and the organisation to which he belongs as something of a victory. This may appear to be a rather preposterous assertion, but I say respectfully that only those who come from Northern Ireland have a real opportunity to know and comprehend the minds of these people and their associates.
I believe that the death sentence as the penalty for murder is justified, although I do not expect that the House is yet prepared to bow to that belief. Accordingly, I content myself at this stage with arguing that prison sentences should serve to punish and to offer a severe warning to those tempted to follow the criminal path.
I say that "life" should mean life and that any minimum or recommended sentence should cease to exist as a mere option or possibility. Legislation must be enacted which will bear forth the message to all who murder or contemplate murder that they will be apprehended and put away for a very long time.
There is a related matter which I believe supports my case and to which I want briefly to refer—that is, the issue of an amnesty for terrorists. We have heard the Secretary of State declare on numerous occasions—we welcome his reassertion today—that there will be no such amnesty. I believe that he means it. Similarly, we have heard the Front Bench spokesman for the Opposition commit any future Conservative Government to that policy, and I believe that they mean it.
Unfortunately, we must report to the House that the terrorists in Northern Ireland still do not believe it, and that not only those already convicted but those who continue to involve themselves with terrorist organisations are convinced that, at some future date, political policies

will once more change and perhaps a Secretary of State of the future will meet their demands. I have had that view confirmed to me by numerous people in Northern Ireland and, in particular, by members of the legal profession, who are in a position to know. I urge that upon the House today as proof that mere words and solemn assurances are not enough and that tangible evidence of the Government's determination must be forthcoming if the terrorists are to get the message.
I believe that, within the framework which I have outlined, there exists the potential to lay finally to rest the notion of an amnesty and to do that which is required in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Kilfedder: The hon. Member talks of the terrorists in Northern Ireland getting the message. Here we are debating security and the death and mutilation of many people in our Province—we are speaking of the agony of the Ulster people—yet there are only 20 Members present, apart from Northern Ireland Members. Surely, if we wanted to get our message across to the terrorists of Northern Ireland, the House should have been packed—as it normally is when we discuss race, nationalization and other matters—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman hopes to catch my eye, I know, as do many other hon. Members. He could have made that point in his speech, if he is called.

Mr. Molyneaux: I hope Mr. Speaker, that you will accept that the hon. Member for Down, North has not and nor have I any responsibility in that matter. Indeed, on many occasions when matters of world-wide importance in foreign affairs have been under debate the number has been even smaller.
I turn briefly now to the balance of security forces within Northern Ireland. We believe that the Government are correct in aiming and planning for the defence of Ulster to be once again the responsibility of Ulstermen. That has been the advice consistently given by Ulster Unionists over the past eight years. Ten Ulster Members were elected to the House in 1974 on a manifesto advocating that very course in terms of security policy and in terms of manpower.
We would encourage Her Majesty's Government to press on with the expansion of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and its reserve, and in that we join the Opposition spokesman in pressing for the speedy delivery of the necessary arms and equipment. We urge the Government to press on, too, with increasing the strength of the Ulster Defence Regiment, and particularly its full-time element.
Moreover, there ought to be a continuation of the deployment of long-stay specialist Army units in preference to the larger units of short-stay formations which represent the most wasteful and least effective element of the Army commitment. In saying that, we wish in no way to detract from our admiration of the courage and sacrifice shown by many of those short-stay elements.
In short, every effort must be made to increase the effectiveness of the indigenous forces and to provide them with the necessary back-up Army specialist and antiterrorist formations.
All of us have a part to play in ensuring that we are all pulling in the right direction. The Government, the security forces and the political parties must cooperate to achieve and create the confidence, steadiness and stability which are, after all, the conditions most feared by terrorists the world over. Above all there must be what The Times today referred to as
the denial to the IRA of any political success or prospect of success.
Linked to that is the need for the denial of even a shred of evidence of sympathy or support. This House can speak with one voice. I trust that right hon. and hon. Members will avail themselves of the opportunity provided by this debate to make clear the attitude of the entire British people.

5.25 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I join in what has been said by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) about your visit to our beloved Province over the weekend, Mr. Speaker. To that part of his speech I can say "Amen".
I assure the House that those in Northern Ireland who expected the Secretary of State to tell us something of the action which he intended to take in the terrible situation which has arisen and is

continuing in our Province had their hopes dashed by his speech this afternoon. I did not get much encouragement, either, from the speech of the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), who opened from the Opposition Front Bench.
I am not particularly interested in what editorial writers say about Northern Ireland. I am interested in preserving the lives of the people of Northern Ireland. The House may not like it, the Secretary of State may not like it and the official Opposition may not like it, but it is a fact that the present security policies in Northern Ireland have failed. We need to grasp that fact.
It is all very well for the Secretary of State to give us statistics, to tell us what matters have been attended to, to tell us that we must keep on a certain course and to reiterate his opinion that the tide has turned, but there are many broken and anguished hearts in Northern Ireland at this moment, and I hope that the Minister who replies to the debate will not again tell the people and the representatives of Northern Ireland that he and his colleagues understand our emotions and the reasons why we say what we do.
We have to speak out. It is our duty to speak out. We expect an answer to our argument. We do not wish to be waved off with a gesture of the hand and the idea that Ministers expect those of us from Northern Ireland to say what we do because of the emotion which is in our hearts. These things have to be said, and they call for an answer.
In Northern Ireland today the continuation of killings and the escalation of burnings and beating-up are proof for all to see that the scourge of terrorism is greater than ever and, indeed, because of certain happenings in our Province, is at this moment gaining tragic momentum.
An anguished cry goes up from Ulster. It goes up from all of us who have sat in the homes of people tragically bereaved and have tried to bring some words of comfort and help to those whose hearts are broken, to those who have been left fatherless or have lost their life partners because of the recent series of events. We know that, unless the House does something effective and the Secretary of State gives us actions instead of words, the situation will inevitably grow worse.
It is good that people should restrain themselves, but let neither the Government nor the House imagine that the restraint of the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland in the face of recent tragedies and massacres means that they are not deeply moved and do not feel that adequate action should be taken.
This House has viewed the situation in Northern Ireland in different ways at different times. The House and the Secretary of State are reaping the sowings of the past. Some were the sowings, of course, of the previous Administration. They cannot, Pilate-like, wash their hands and pretend that they do not bear a responsibility. There was a time, as the hon. Member for Antrim, South has said, when the words of any Unionist in this House were brushed aside as not worth the notice of the House.
But now the circle has been completed and the House realises that there is an Irish Republican Army. I remember a time when it was denied in this House. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said that the IRA was "a myth invented by the Unionist Party". The IRA has always existed in Northern Ireland. All that was needed was some trouble to give it another latchhold on the community.
The party to which the Prime Minister of the Republic belongs bears a strong and guilty responsibility for the spawning of the Provisional IRA. It is not just I who say that. One has only to read what Neil Blaney said, one of the midwives when the womb of the Fianna Fail Party brought forth the hideous child of the IRA. In the Dail he said that there were people trying to wash their hands of circumstances that they had helped to bring about. So it is no wonder that Mr. Lynch will not give us much help here.
We might appeal to the Dublin Government to sign the Council of Europe convention on terrorism, but they will not do so. I have little hope that the present United Kingdom Government or even a Conservative Government will be prepared to put economic sanctions on the Republic, but one thing that is within the Government's power is to put a tighter seal on the border.
A friend of mine who is a business man needed a large metal part from a

Dublin agent for one of his machines that had broken down. When contacted, the Dublic agent said, "We have the part. We will send a man to Dundalk. You send a vehicle there. We shall meet in the car park and pass over this part." That business man went to Dundalk. This is nothing to laugh about. The piece of machinery could have been a weapon of death intended to make more blood flow in Northern Ireland.
My friend arrived at the Dundalk car park, met the agent and took delivery of the piece of machinery. His car was not stopped on its way to the border, at the border or on the way back. Yet it could have gone there to receive a machine gun. The Government can at least do something more to seal off the northern side of the border more effectively. It can be done, it needs to be done and it must be done.
The Secretary of State has told us of the explosives which are coming into the North of Ireland. Although commercial explosives are not being used, no one should minimise the strength of the fire bomb that the IRA has developed. This new type of fire bomb, the size of a fist, when hung on the grille of the La Mon Restaurant threw a sheet of flame 50 feet. Everything that it touched blazed up immediately. Senior police officers and those responsible for the fire authority to whom I have spoken say that, even if a fire engine is standing by, it is almost impossible to put out that type of fire.

Mrs. Knight: Mrs. Knight Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House anything about the proposals for the use of Lexan plastic which would stop the spread of fire from these meat hook bombs by covering windows where there are grilles, or about the use of Macralon in an attempt to make it more difficult to place the bombs, thereby aiding security?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I cannot help the hon. Lady but I know that it would be very difficult and expensive for commercial firms to safeguard their premises against this type of bomb.
The situation is continuing. We feel very deeply about what has happened. There are certain underlying facts and I want to mention one which shows why the people of Northern Ireland feel as they do. Part of the Shankill Road and


Upper Shankill adjoins the Falls Road and the Springfield Road. In that area there is a peace line dividing those two interface communities. There have been continual attacks across the Springfield Road and into the Shankill Road area. UDR members have been murdered.
In a school in that area, once well attended, seven classrooms are now never opened. It has 106 pupils where it used to have about 250. It is a State school attended by the Protestant community. There is a determined effort to push the Protestants, especially those with families, completely out of the area. On a Friday recently, members of the IRA walked into that school while it was in operation and planted a bomb. Fortunately, it was a hoax bomb, but it could have been real. That was done to put further pressure on the parents, especially the mothers.
There is now a proposal on the Housing Executive's drawing board that the peace line should be pulled back 150 yards into the Protestant area—that there should be a retreat to that extent. One can pinpoint the progress of the bombings in that area. It is not random bombing; they are not random killings. This is a carefully planned campaign, on an overall policy basis, to reach the final objective of the terrorists.
I was asked to go to that area to meet the representatives of the people and the police. I met them in a community centre in Ainsworth Avenue. The police inspector told me "I have one Land Rover. I don't have a carbine weapon. I have a Sterling sub-machine gun. I have only four men, and I have 30,000 Protestants in my area to look after." I was amazed by that statement and asked that there might be a meeting with the assistant chief constable, Mr. Chesney, who is in charge of the area, members of the UDR and the Army, to see what could be done.
We had a meeting the next day at 9.30 a.m. in the police headquarters in Ladas Drive, Belfast. There were present the assistant chief constable, the inspector who had been at the first meeting, a UDR major and representatives of the Army. The matter was put to Assistant Chief Constable Chesney, and the inspector backed us up. He said "That's right, sir." I turned to the UDR major and asked

"Have you men available?" He replied "Yes. I have 50 men available." I asked "Why cannot you assist the police?" The Secretary of State has told us today that the UDR can assist the police. The major said "Are you not aware that my men axe not permitted on the Springfield Road? That is banned territory as far as we are concerned."
As long as that situation continues, we cannot expect even to inspire confidence. UDR men are shot, and that major told me "I have advised my men to leave that district, for they are at great risk." When the ordinary people see the UDR men and members of the security forces leaving such an area they, too, will begin to leave it, and that is what is happening. That is like a microcosm. It is only part of what is happening in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State wrote to me on the issue. His letter was far from helpful, because he had no encouragement to give to the people concerned that any help would be coming to them. This puts fear into the community.
The Secretary of State needs to take several matters into consideration. First, there is the question of manpower. There is no doubt that it would be the ideal if the Ulster people recruited to the police and to the UDR could be the spearhead in the attack on the terrorists. But that cannot be at present, because the UDR is not permitted to operate in the very areas that it needs to operate in, the areas in which the terrorists hide, where they make their bombs, from which they come and to which they return to find sanctuary after they have done their murderous work.
Many comments have been made in the House about the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Many things were said about it in days when it was a despised force. But it should be remembered that it is the only force that has borne the heat of the day against the terrorists.
I was in the home of a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) the other day and heard a child of eight months crying for a father who will never return, two other young children weeping for their daddy and a little boy saying, with tears down his face, "He'll never take me fishing again." When you hear that, Mr. Speaker,


you know the extent to which the terrorist problem exists in Northern Ireland and the extent to which it must be faced.
The manpower position is serious. I disagree with the hon. Member for Antrim, South. Because we do not have the armaments in the hands of the police and the UDR, we need in Northern Ireland more troops who have those arms. That is essential. Think of it, Mr. Speaker. There are men in Northern Ireland, policemen and reserve men, going out in cars that might as well be made of papier mâché. IRA weapons can penetrate those vehicles, and then those inside them will be added to the list of those who have fallen prey to the Irish Republican Army.
I wonder why armaments for the RUC have taken so long to be forthcoming. Pleas have been made about the matter in debate after debate. I also wonder why the UDR full-time strength was not brought up more quickly. I think that it was almost a year before any action was taken on pleas from the United Ulster Unionist Bench about the full-time members of the UDR.
Manpower is an essential. We need more troops. I need not remind the Secretary of State that he had plenty of troops available when some of us felt that action needed to be taken. He was able to move many troops into the very centre of my constituency—enough to clean up the IRA in two or three weeks. But after that episode was over they all came out.
The right hon. Gentleman told us today that we might have full-time troops in September. I think that that was the month he gave. What will happen until September? What will happen before these resident troops are available in Northern Ireland? We need manpower now to deal with the enemy who is creating such havoc in our midst.
What about the armaments? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us today that he will have the guns available? We know of the difficulties with the guns, how there were defects in the first batch to be brought in and how they had to be sent away again. We know that whole saga. Why is it that when weapons are needed to fight the IRA the IRA always has better weapons than our men? Our men who are fighting the IRA should

have the best weapons. They should be at an advantage, not a disadvantage, as they have been in Northern Ireland.
Then there is the question of the deployment of the troops. The largest Protestant denomination in Northern Ireland is the Irish Presbysterian Church. I am sure that the Secretary of State has carefully studied its Press release in which is said that it was all very well to make an effort after a serious incident but asked whether the effort could be made to prevent such an incident.
When I interrupted the Secretary of State today he told us that, I think, 43 people had been taken in during the latest round-up. None of them had anything to do with the La Mon massacre. Why were those people not brought in before and dealt with before? Why were they not faced before with the crimes of which they are now accused? Does it take the massacre at La Mon to stir up the Secretary of State and the security forces to do these things? Those are the questions the ordinary man in the street is asking, and he wants answers today. He wants to know what the House will do about the matter.
I return to the deployment of troops. Will they go into the areas that I have described? Is the low profile to be continued or will there be a declaration of war, a declaration that the people concerned will be put down, that they will be hunted down and dealt with?
This House seems to be very lenient with the killers. I have heard it said over and over again that it would not do to have martyrs. Two IRA men died on hunger strike in British gaols. I never hear their names mentioned. I have never heard anything about them since. They are long since forgotten.
But there are martyrs almost daily in Northern Ireland—the innocent. In the term "innocent" I include the police and the soldiers who are doing their lawful tasks. Let no one say that a civilian is innocent but that a boy in khaki is not. He is doing a legitimate task of protecting society and preserving law and order. These are the people who are the martyrs, not those who gun them down.
As I have said, this House does not seem to be so concerned about those who are killed, but it is very concerned about the killers. The Secretary of State cannot get away from the strong majority of


feeling in Northern Ireland about capital punishment, even among people who, in an ordinary society, would have conscientious objection to it. But today the feeling is that either the Province survives and these killers are hanged, or these people are not hanged and the Province will not survive. That is the question.
This is a life and death struggle. I believe in the principle
Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.
When we depart from Divine law, we sow seeds of anarchy. If anyone should say that what I have quoted is Old Testament, I turn now to the New Testament, to the greatest apostle, St. Paul:
…if… I have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die.
He evidently believed that to kill a human being deserved the death of the killer.
I hope that there will be no misunderstanding. Let it be emphasised here today that unless the Government move on this issue there will be a loud and increasing cry from all sections of the community. The Secretary of State has often said that the people of Northern Ireland can speak for themselves. Is he prepared to put this issue to a referendum? Is he prepared for the people of Northern Ireland to say "Yes" or "No" on the issue? It seems to many people that the Secretary of State clamps down on every suggestion put by the people of Northern Ireland about these matters.
Can this situation go on? Can Northern Ireland continue on the road that it is on? How long can its people take what they have been forced to take and stomach what they have been forced to stomach? This House should be warned that there is a breaking point, that the people cannot go on taking what they have been taking.
For Northern Ireland this House is the only elected assembly where the voice of the people can be heard. I trust that the voice of the people will be heard and heeded today, for if it is not heard and heeded and action is not taken a far worse situation could arise which could fan flames that this House could never control. The situation is as serious as that, and I trust that today we will hear something from the Government that will show that they will at least rethink the policies

which I believe have been destructive and have led to the terrible situation that has arisen in our beloved Province.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: We have known for over a week that this debate was to take place on security in Northern Ireland. I have told those who have questioned me on the subject that I did not believe that it would achieve anything because we can all engage in recriminations about the security situation as it has been in Northern Ireland for so many years. I believe that a debate like this, related to security, to who has the most arms, who has the greatest fire power and who has the greater number of men under arms, will in no way bring to an end the tragedy in the island of Ireland. It is because of the political problem in Ireland that we have the security problem.
If the Government were to swamp Northern Ireland with thousands upon thousands of troops, armed with all sorts of new and sophisticated weaponry, they would still, at the end of the day, when all the killings had taken place, when all the prisoners had gone to prison, when all the graves had been filled, be left with the intractable problem which has been with us so long in Anglo-Irish relations.
Therefore, in discussing the security problem, let us be ever mindful that before that problem can be solved, before the killing can be brought to an end, some attempt must be made to look at the political dilemma which faces us all in relation to the Six Counties of Northern Ireland.
We all remember La Mon House a fortnight ago—that terrible tragedy of the incineration of so many innocent young people. Yet that was only one tragedy. I remember McGurk's Bar in my constituency, where 16 people were killed—the greatest number of deaths in any incident in Northern Ireland. I remember "Bloody Sunday" when 13 people were killed in Derry by the British Army. I remember Dungiven and Coleraine and all the other places where innocent people have lost their lives. I remember the single instances in which only one life has been lost—it could have been that of an old man, an old woman or a young baby in arms.
So it is with a certain amount of emotion that Members from Northern Ireland see the security problem. I say again what I have said so many times in the House. I want to see the border in Ireland abolished. I want to see a 32-county island of Ireland. I may add that I want to see a Socialist Ireland and not a Communist Ireland.
But, having said that, I repeat that I despise every action by the Provisional IRA. I believe that these men have besmirched the name of Irish Republicanism. I do not believe that they can in any way attribute their actions to idealism or patriotism. I believe that their actions in the past and those in which they are engaged today will put back the day that I long for so much, when Ireland will be able to govern itself, living on the most friendly and harmonious terms with the people here in the larger island of Great Britain. I have never believed that in loving Ireland it is necessary to dislike or show any hostility to England. I have the greatest admiration for the peoples of England, Scotland and Wales.
I believe that in a debate such as this we should not merely be looking to more sophisticated weapons and a greater number of deaths among those opposed to us. I listened with fear and trembling to the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), who is the Conservative Party's spokesman on Northern Ireland. I fear the day when he will have anything to do with setting out policy in Northern Ireland. He has advocated here today that we should make representations to our American allies so that they will be able to supply us liberally with the M60, a gun which can fire 550 rounds a minute. What would the hon. Gentleman do with one of those guns—or with two or three of them?
How can such weaponry be used in the circumstances which exist in Northern Ireland? I understand that the IRA used this weapon in the killing of a young British soldier in north Belfast. He could have been killed quite as readily with an ordinary rifle or a revolver. The building up of such weaponry is an indication of the kind of thinking which exists among those who believe that there is a military solution.
I objected from this Bench when the SAS was brought into Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), who was then Prime Minister, voiced the opinion of many people in the House when he took offence at my objection to the SAS coming into Northern Ireland. I still have that objection. I do not believe that peace in Ireland will ever be brought about by military means and the presence of members of the British Army.
But let me say now that I do not listen any longer to criticisms made by the Provisional IRA of members of the SAS because they operate in a covert way and disguise themselves when they are in action. The IRA did exactly the same thing last Friday when its members went into the student rag week parade in Donegal Street disguised as Arabs and then pulled out their weapons and killed a young soldier and a young innocent girl on the streets of my native city. I do not support the activities of the SAS, but much less do I give any credence or support to the IRA when it complains that other people are using the same tactics as it uses.
I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), who advocated that the Government should take economic sanctions or some other form of sanctions against the Government of the Irish Republic in order to pressurise them or force them into taking whatever action he thinks it is possible for them to take to bring to an end the troubles in Northern Ireland. I am not a supporter of the present Irish Government, and I am not a supporter of the Fianna Fail Party, but I resent attempts being made, by people who should know better, to lay all the blame on the people of the Irish Republic and on the Irish Government for what is happening in Northern Ireland.
The best way that I can illustrate my feeling is to ask hon. Members to look at Long Kesh, to look at the Crumlin Road and to look at the prison in Armagh. Of all the people who would call themselves political prisoners, and of all those who have been engaged in IRA and terrorist activities, there are very few who were born in what is now the Republic of Ireland. One could count on one hand those who were born in the Republic of


Ireland. Therefore, there is no cross-border attack on the constitution of Northern Ireland. Those who are in prison were born and bred and have lived their lives within the confines of the Six Counties. It is people such as they who are igniting the fuses on the petrol bombs and pulling the triggers on the M60s. It is not being done by anyone from the 26-county Republic of Ireland.
I am fully prepared to accept that the overwhelming majority of the people in the 26 counties want to see a united Ireland. I want to see it myself. But I do not believe that it will ever be brought about by bombing and killing and trying to coerce the majority population of Northern Ireland. I heard the espousals of faith in the security forces made here this afternoon. I find them just a little sickening.
It does not take a very long memory to go back to May 1977. It was not the IRA then which was laying down a challenge to the security forces. It was not the IRA or the Republicans in the minority community in Northern Ireland who were blockading the roads and castigating, with all their vehemence, members of the security forces, including the UDR and the police. No, it was people who were ably led at that time by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and another of his colleagues in Northern Ireland. It was those people who were causing such disruption, standing in open defiance of the will not only of the Government here but of this Parliament.
A bus driver named Bradshaw was shot dead at the wheel of his bus because he was trying to go to his work in defiance of the strikers. He was not shot by Republicans or members of the IRA. They were terrorists, maybe, but certainly not from the Republican side. We have heard the hon. Member for Antrim, North telling us this afternoon that he wants to see the UDR men going into all the Catholic ghettos and kicking the terrorists out of them. The life of the UDR man who gave his life on that occasion was taken not by a Republican or by an IRA terrorist but by a Loyalist.
We heard from the hon. Member for Antrim, North that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State sent thousands of troops into Ballymena on that occasion

to try to prevent the hon. Gentleman from sealing off the whole town. One night last week on television, I heard the most contradictory statements to which I have ever listened. As the hon. Gentleman was going into the court, with the television cameras fully on him, I heard him say "I am going into this court with an easy conscience. We were not doing anything in a terrorist sense. We were only making a peaceful protest. We were not wrecking anything. We are law-abiding people." Inside the court, however, the hon. Gentleman's defence lawyer told the magistrate that his client had made a deal with the RUC to have himself arrested and so prevent his supporters from tearing the town apart. That was the hon. Gentleman's defence in the court. He actually made a deal with the RUC to have himself arrested so that his supporters, who were engaged in a peaceful protest to bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the security situation in Northern Ireland, would not wreck and tear the heart out of Ballymena.
I say to my right hon. Friend—if it is necessary to say it to him—that there are all sorts of terrorists in Northern Ireland. They are not confined to one section of the community.
There are people here who would criticise the party which I lead on the ground that we do not—or allegedly do not—give full support to every single member of the security forces. I think that the reasons which we have advanced in the past should be completely acceptable to any reasonable persons. I do not condemn every single member of the UDR. Many of them are decent, honourable men, trying to do what they can for what they regard as their country. But far too many members of the UDR have been found to be members of subversive organisations while at the same time wearing the uniform of a member of the security forces.

Mr. McCusker: How many?

Mr. Fitt: One would be far too many. I remember that in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) an illegal platoon of the UDR set out to kill innocent people, the members of the Miami Show Band. It is fortunate that they are now serving terms of imprisonment.
There is one issue on which I find myself totally in agreement with the hon. Member for Antrim, South. Although I said at Stormont on each and every occasion when the matter was brought forward that I opposed the death penalty—I have taken the same view in this place—I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman that, when a person is sentenced to life imprisonment for the taking of another life, it must be actual life imprisonment. There must be no question of political status or the halving of a political sentence. I regard the sanctity of human life to such an extent that any person who wantonly takes another's life should be kept away from society for the remaining years of his or her life. However, in no circumstances shall I support the reintroduction of the death penalty, either in Northern Ireland or in any other part of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South said—I think I have his words correctly—that this country is not without weapons to influence the Government of the Republic to take certain action on the border. I ask him "Such as?" What weapons has the hon. Gentleman in mind when he puts forward that proposition? Is he saying that some form of sanction or other action should be directed against the million Irish people, or those of Irish extraction, living in this country? Many of those people were born in this country. They have committed no offence except that they are either Irish or the children of Irish parents. We have heard it said "Stop the bloodshed".
We have heard it said by the hon. Member for Abingdon that there may be an occasion in future when consideration will be given to the credentials of British and Irish citizenship. I take that as an implied threat. The hon. Gentleman may say that that is not so, but that is how I take it. Apart from those in Northern Ireland and in the Republic, many of those who would be most affected by such a course—those who are living here—take the hon. Gentleman's words as an implied threat. It causes them to think that action will be taken against innocent citizens living in this country if the Government of the Republic do not fall into line with the wishes of a Conservative Government.
I do not believe that that will ever happen. Ordinary decent British people would not tolerate such an attitude. I ask the hon. Gentleman what other things he has in mind. There is the ridiculous proposition put forward by the right hon. Member for Down, South that we should stop the circulation of Irish money in the North of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that we should not allow Irish currency to flow freely over the border. Again, I do not believe that that is an argument that would hold much sway with those in Ireland. They are quite happy about the use of Irish money. That was evident last Saturday when everyone went to the rugby match. They were quite happy to accept either English or Irish money. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman makes a tenable proposition.
It seems that there is a wish on the part of some to create emotion and to make people feel foreign. That is the whole purpose of the exercise. It is designed to make people feel uneasy, to make them feel that they have no right in their own country. It is wished to make them feel that proposals may be put forward that would exclude them from living the normal everyday life to which they are entitled.
I accept that the hon. Member for Antrim, South did not say "sanctions" but he said that this country is not without weapons and that influence could be used. I hope that the Conservative spokesman or my right hon. Friend will be a little more explicit and will tell the House what he believes to be the thinking behind the hon. Gentleman's observations.
I have already said why there is not 100 per cent. support for the UDR. The same situation existed with the RUC although I now find the RUC to be the most acceptable force in Northern Ireland. I have no hesitation in saying that. I have spoken to many of my constituents and I find that there has been a dramatic change in the way that the force is seen by the Catholic population. That change has taken place since 1969. That is not to say there is full-hearted 100 per cent. acceptance.
There is reason for doubt when the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) can say in court that he made a


deal with a senior member of the RUC—I understand that his name is Superintendent James O'Hara, which would lead me to believe that he is not a member of an Orange Lodge—to have himself arrested.
I do not believe that it was necessary to make deals with the hon. Gentleman. He was breaking the law. The magistrate said that it would be unsafe to convict. It may be that the magistrate was frightened of not getting home for his tea that night. The man was breaking the law. Everyone in Northern Ireland believed that he was breaking the law. Such a decision calls into question the impartiality of the courts. That is an even more serious situation.
There was the occasion when many farmers illegally blocked the road at Toome Bridge. Many neutral persons were provoked into taking action against the farmers. They were all taken to court, including the farmers, and the majority were found guilty of an offence. Those who were found guilty of throwing their machines into the River Bann were found guilty. However, those who organised the strike and who were involved from its inception—they organised it, we saw them on television every night and heard them making statements to the Press—left court without conviction. The magistrate said that it would be unsafe to convict.
We have had the UDR and the police and now we have the courts. The impartiality of the courts is being called into question.

Mr. William Craig: Before the hon. Gentleman casts aspersions on the integrity of the courts, it is as well to consider what the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) was charged with. He was charged with obstructing the police in the course of their duty. The court had information which indicated that the hon. Gentleman was co-operating with the police. I ask the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) to be careful before he drags the courts into the political arena.

Mr. Fitt: It seems from what the right hon. Gentleman has just said that the hon. Gentleman was charged with the wrong offence. I hope that the people of Northern Ireland take note of that, as the House will have taken note. That

is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman said—namely, that the hon. Gentleman was charged with the wrong offence. If he had been brought before the court on another charge, it is possible that there would have been a different verdict.
A debate on security in isolation from all the other political factors does not achieve anything. In an intervention, the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) asked whether it had been brought to my right hon. Friend's notice that 2,000 people were at the funeral of a young IRA man who had been shot by the British Army in County Tyrone. It was a valid point to bring to the notice of the House. Who constituted the 2,000? There would be the young man's relatives, his relations and those who lived in the adjoining countryside. There would be those who believe in the ideals that allegedly brought him to his death. That is an important factor.
That should illustrate to my right hon. Friend that there is no simple, easy military solution. The solution does not lie in killing one IRA man or in killing one subversive after another. That much is clear if the death of such a person can arouse great emotion and cause 2,000 to attend a funeral. I am quite certain that not all those people at that funeral believed in violence. They were not all gunmen. They did not believe that one could coerce Northern Ireland into a united Ireland.
But it was very unfair, in human charity to say the least, for the Leader of the official Unionist Party in Northern Ireland, Mr. West, to lay great emphasis on the fact that that young boy who was shot for being a member of the IRA was a nephew of one of the members of my own political party.
No one in Northern Ireland can be responsible for what his nephews or nieces do. No one can be responsible for what his sons or daughters do in the terrible situation of Northern Ireland. I know of many mothers and fathers in Northern Ireland who have been absolutely broken-hearted at finding out that their children were caught up in the web of violence. That applies not only to the Catholic minority or to the Republican population but to the Loyalist population as well. Therefore, it is very unfair for any person to cast aspersions on either the political sincerity of the SDLP or


any of its members because one of them happened to be related to a young man who was shot for his beliefs.
This debate tonight will not achieve anything. I know that my right hon. Friend cannot come along to the Dispatch Box and tell us what action he has taken with regard to security, because if he did it would be read in the newspapers and people would know what had been said. Those guilty of such acts would be forewarned and, therefore, forearmed. I believe that, of necessity, security must be kept as secret as possible.
I cannot emphasise too much that there is no military solution to the problem of Northern Ireland. A political solution must be found. That will not be easy. It will be very difficult. But it will be less difficult than trying to find a solution brought about by force of arms.
Therefore, while we all deplore the vicious and ruthless atrocities that have taken place—not only over the past fortnight but throughout all the years since the outbreak of violence—I believe that my right hon. Friend must persist. He may not often find members of my party to be the most co-operative people in Northern Ireland, but he must continue to seek to find political answers to political problems rather than rely on weaponry to bring about a military solution.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like you to give a ruling to the House. Is it in order for an hon. Member of the House to challenge the integrity of another hon. Member and to accuse him of being guilty of a crime for which he has been tried in the courts and found not guilty?
I have desisted until this moment. I appeal to you to give a ruling on this matter since it refers to the integrity of every hon. Member of this House. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) saw fit to give a garbled account of proceedings that took place last week and accused me of intimidating the magistrate—who found me not guilty—because he might not get out of his court room.

Mr. John Ellis: Sit down.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall not sit down for the hon. Gentleman, but I shall sit down for Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): The hon. Gentleman must get accustomed to the fact that certain things are said in this House to which he must listen in peace.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are you ruling that an hon. Member can challenge the integrity of another hon. Member on a matter which can cause that hon. Member to have court proceedings brought against him? Are you saying that it is in order for such an accusation to be made? Is that what I take from your reply?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That was not what I was trying to say.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. John Carson: In participating in this debate I remind the House of the constructive role that my colleagues and I have played and of our resolve to continue to play that role with regard to the dangerous and volatile situation in Northern Ireland. I also make clear that my criticisms of the Government do not stem from any desire to be negative, destructive or to win a few cheap headlines in Northern Ireland.
Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), who has now left the Chamber, did try to make cheap headlines out of some of the tragedies that have occurred in Northern Ireland over the past few weeks. He has levelled all sorts of criticisms at my colleagues and me with regard to our determination to see security brought into its proper line in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Down, North was only concerned about the tragedy of La Mon. Four people from my constituency died in La Mon and two are still seriously ill in hospital as a result of the cowardly attack by the Provisional IRA. The people of Northern Ireland, rightly so, are asking themselves the question—

Mr. Kilfedder: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Carson: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Kilfedder: Will the hon. Gentleman either give way or shut up?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr.


Carson) does not give way, the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) must resume his seat.

Mr. Kilfedder: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is a point of order.

Mr. Kilfedder: Is it not a convention of the House that if an hon. Member launches an attack on another hon. Member which is totally untrue, he gives way to the person he is attacking? If that convention is not being—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is entirely for the discretion of the hon. Member whether he gives way or not.

Mr. Carson: I should like to continue.

Mr. Kilfedder: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Carson: I shall not give way. The hon. Member for Down, North claims that he is concerned about security in Northern Ireland, but how many meetings has he had with the divisional commander for the area of North Down? How many times has he met the Secretary of State over the past 12 months to discuss security in Northern Ireland? How many times has he availed himself of the opportunity of meeting people in his constituency to talk about the deteriorating situation in Northern Ireland? How many times has he taken the trouble to visit the UDR, which operates freely in North Down? Indeed, the very day that the La Mon tragedy took place the UDR was operating quite freely in the North Down area.
Many people are asking what party the hon. Member for Down, North represents. The Home Secretary has rightly said that the hon. Gentleman should fully understand this because he was born and bred in the Republic of Ireland. Indeed, he is a member—

Mr. Kilfedder: Smear.

Mr. Carson: —of the Fianna Gael Party.

Mr. Kilfedder: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This person—this hon. Gentleman—is continuing to make unfounded allegations against me. I demand that he gives way. I demand

that he repeats those allegations outside this House so that I can take action against him. Otherwise he should shut up.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It may well be that if the hon. Gentleman wishes he will catch the eye of an occupant of the Chair in due course.

Mr. Kilfedder: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I call upon the hon. Gentleman to promise to repeat his allegations outside this House so that I can take action against him.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What happens outside the House has nothing to do with the Chair.

Mr. Carson: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has been known to be a member of the Fianna Gael Party in the Republic and I have never yet read in any Hansard or any other record of his resigning from that party. The people of Northern Ireland are asking what party he represents. He claims that he belongs to the Unionist Party at Westminster, but at the moment he is not interested in this debate or in the welfare of the people of Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Down, North once represented West Belfast and was rejected by the people of Armagh. If he had seen some of the tragedies that have taken place in my constituency and in the constituencies of my hon. Friends, perhaps he would have been more concerned over the years in making repeated requests for debates and in seeing Ministers, chiefs of police and Army chiefs about security in Northern Ireland.
I am sure that none of us has any desire to make the position of the Secretary of State more difficult. In some areas in Northern Ireland the Secretary of State is called "Stone Mason" and "Bloody Mason". The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's appointment and some people have been calling for him to go. I am not among them. I am satisfied that we have a good Secretary of State representing this House and the Government who dictate security policy for Northern Ireland.
Although I am not satisfied with security and I intend to level criticisms at the Government about certain aspects of security, I want to make clear that I am not levelling any criticism against


the Secretary of State. I am sure that he understands that it is an essential part of our duty to advise him of the feelings and attitudes of those who send us here. I am sure the House will understand that, at this time, their feelings are great anger, frustration and dismay.
Only a few months ago, the people of Northern Ireland were being told that terrorism was on the run and that the war was almost over. Whether official statements reflected the real situation which existed at the turn of the year—and I believe they did not—circumstances have clearly changed. There is now a growing belief in Northern Ireland that events have turned full circle and we now stand poised for a resurgence of IRA violence and agitation.
The murders at La Mon and of civilians and members of the security forces are indicative of the IRA's intention and ability to intensify its armed rebellion against the people of Northern Ireland.
On behalf of myself and my colleagues, I should like to offer my sympathy and condolences to the families of the three young soldiers and the young civilian searcher who have lost their lives so tragically over the past five or six days as a result of brutal and cowardly attacks by the Provisional IRA.
There can be no doubt that the IRA has drawn comfort and encouragement from the Government of the Irish Republic. In the eyes of all decent people in Northern Ireland, Jack Lynch stands condemned alongside the Provisional IRA. His talk of British withdrawal from Ulster has refuelled the fires of violent republicanism in recent weeks. It must be said that he is not without blame for the bloodshed we have witnessed.
There has been talk recently about people who have been involved in politics coming on to the streets again. I should like an assurance from the Secretary of State today that he will not permit a return to street politics in Northern Ireland and the sort of agitation and political subversion which, in 1968 and 1969, paved the way for the present terrorist campaign. Will he assure the House that, whatever pressure is placed upon him in the weeks and months to come, he will not abdicate his authority to enforce the law and protect the people in

Northern Ireland? In particular, will he reaffirm his support for and faith in the security forces in their struggle against the terrorists? In the process, will he make it clear that, in no circumstances, will political considerations be permitted to impede the security forces in their pursuit of total victory over those engaged in this rebellion?
In the case of my constituency, I am anxious that the Secretary of State should avail himself of an early opportunity to demonstrate this resolution and make urgent changes in the present security arrangements. In particular, I wish to see the UDR introduced to all areas in North Belfast. We have been assured by Ministers that there is no area in which the UDR cannot go. In my constituency there are many areas in which the UDR is not permitted, as part of the British Army, to carry out its duties.
The Secretary of State has also said that those areas not open to the UDR are being patrolled by members of the Army. But the Army is not patrolling these areas in North Belfast either in strength. We have repeatedly met Army commanders and they have said that in the whole of North Belfast and its 17 interface areas they have not the men to patrol the streets as they would like. In some instances, I have seen, in areas which are very hostile towards the security forces, only three soldiers patrolling the streets at night. The commander has told us that he does not have the men to carry out the duties that he would like to be carried out.
The Secretary of State has paid tribute to the UDR and spoken of its excellent work in Northern Ireland. Surely the UDR can carry out this work in the whole of North Belfast and in the other areas where the UDR is not allowed to serve at present.
There is another matter affecting the UDR which is causing me concern. The 10th Battalion UDR in my constituency is under tremendous pressure. Some hon. Members may not appreciate the pressures on UDR men, not only in their places of employment, but at home. When there is a knock on the door, they have to be careful how they open it and they have to protect their families and children.
Recently, the SIB has been taking members of the 10th Battalion to Lisburn


and subjecting them to intense interrogation for six or seven hours without allowing them even a drink of water. I hope that the Secretary of State will investigate what is going on and will write to me to explain why members of the UDR who, after a hard day at work and having had time to grab only a quick meal before reporting to their unit, are being put through this intensive interrogation at Lisburn.
I should like to mention the RUC. I have mentioned the RUC repeatedly in the House before. The Minister has said that there are certain matters that we cannot discuss for security reasons. We represent the people of Northern Ireland and we are entitled to know what is happening about the supply of equipment and weapons to the RUC.
Very often, even by written request, when we ask the Minister with responsibility for the police for information, he just waves his hands and says "I cannot tell you." We are entitled, representing policemen, UDR men and large constituencies in Northern Ireland, to know what is happening about the equipment of the RUC. We have been told today by the Secretary of State that vehicles are being supplied to the RUC and that it has sufficient weapons, But that is not the story of the men on the ground. I am one of those politicians who spend a lot of time on the ground. I know my constituents and I know every street and road. I make it my business to talk not only to the chief constable but to the constable in the street, who has to live 24 hours a day with the threat of the terrorist hanging over his head.
If the proper vehicles had been provided for the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross), the young constable Simpson might not have been dead today. Londonderry is vulnerable to terrorist attack. It has come under constant attack from the IRA. Yet young policemen going around that area with insufficient vehicles, in the face of the IRA, are being mown down.
The Minister may say that it is the fault of the makers. Let me tell the Minister that when this great country of ours, Britain, of which I am proud to be a part, was at war with Germany, whenever the arms and aircraft were needed to fight Germany it did not say "Stop the

war. We have not got the equipment." We have a war in Northern Ireland, and it is time that the Government pulled out the stops and put the pressure on the people to supply vehicles and weapons to the RUC and thus save the lives of men who are so devoutly standing day after day and night after night trying to protect the people of Northern Ireland.
I should like to remind the Minister that whenever any full-time members of the UDR were brought in they were not supplied with additional vehicles either. Out of one company with 31 vehicles, quite recently only 19 vehicles were allowed to go out on the road one night because there were no additional vehicles. If the Government and the House want peace—I know that hon. Members representing Northern Ireland long for peace—we must supply the necessary weapons and the vehicles. If the police are playing the main role supported by the Army, they should be given the vehicles and the equipment that they need. The UDR in many areas is a back-up force for the RUC. The Minister should give it the additional vehicles needed to carry out its duties.
My hon. Friends are longing to speak. There is much more that they can say about the security situation. These are matters that I feel about. I am moved as I go round my constituency. Perhaps no constituency in Northern Ireland has suffered more than mine. I have led deputation after deputation, as the Minister knows full well, about the situation in Northern Ireland. I have sat in divisional commanders' offices. I have met the Chief Constable. I am concerned about the lives that are being lost. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has mentioned the cries of a little boy for his daddy over the La Mon tragedy. I visited the home in my constituency of a little girl of three years of age with golden locks down to her shoulders. For two days she had not even spoken. When I went to the house she was biting her hand. She broke down and cried. She said "When is my mummy coming home?" That is only one incident.
In nine years I have visited many homes. I have seen children crying for mothers and for fathers. I have seen wives crying for husbands and mothers


crying for sons. At this late hour I appeal to the Government to assist the forces of law and order, even to give new legislative powers to the forces who are prepared to enforce law and order, so that very soon the people who are perpetrating the violence, the Provisional IRA, will be dealt with in a speedy way.
An appeal has been made by the Secretary of State from the Dispatch Box on more than one occasion for restraint from retaliation. But we have the right to demand that terrorism also must be not only restrained but eliminated. I echo the words of the Secretary of State when he said today "for us there can be no acceptable level of violence."

6.46 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) has achieved one result in the Chamber this afternoon. He has driven out what few Members were in it, and that is a shame. It is a shame also that he should have besmirched his speech—whoever pepared it is equally responsible—and besmirched the whole subject of security with a shameful personal attack on myself that is totally without foundation.
The hon. Member has said, on behalf of his Powell group of six Unionist MPs and it has often been repeated in debates on security in the years gone by, that it is not their desire to make more difficult the position of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I condemn that kind of remark which condemns the Ulster people to the sort of horror and agony which they have been suffering for nine long years.
We have heard talk by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) of castle Catholics. I think that we have here today pliant Protestants who prostitute themselves to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and this Labour Government. It has not gone without notice that the hon. Member who made that personal attack on myself, who has been a scourge on the Government, has received the honour of High Sheriff of Belfast from the hands of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. This is one of the honours which has gone to that group for distorting the

voice of the Ulster people in this Chamber.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Member make it clear to the House that he is a member of the same official Unionist Party as the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) and that the founding father of Northern Ireland, Lord Carson, was born and educated in the South of Ireland? The remark that he made was first made by a nationalist inside the privilege of Stormont. Will he invite the hon. Member to repeat those remarks outside the House?

Mr. Kilfedder: I am grateful for what the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has said. He has stated, as is the case, that one of Ulster's great sons, Edward Carson, was born in the South of Ireland. I had not heard it suggested until this moment that it was a crime for a Protestant to come from the South.
That is the narrow parochial attitude of the hon. Member and his colleagues. Of course, in their constituency work they get into a fervour about the Irish Republic and the Tricolour. Yet the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker), who can go to the Eire Embassy in London and fill his belly full of alcohol, can go to his constituency and say how strongly he feels against the Irish Republic. Indeed, the hon. Member—he has not denied this—travelled to this House from the Eire Embassy in an Eire Embassy limousine with the Tricolour flying in front.
The matter does not stop there. When I have attacked the Government and their predecessors for failing to protect life and limb in Northern Ireland, what has happened? The Powell group of six behind me—this is borne out by other hon. Members—have attacked me and cheered on the Ministers whom I was attacking in the name of the people of Northern Ireland.
What happened in the debate on security last summer? The Powell group of six Unionist MPs put down a motion which I ridiculed. That was because I felt that a deal had been done—it was not denied by the Government spokesman—between the group of six and the Government to put down so weak a motion on security that the Government would accept it. The Minister of State smiled


when I made that accusation. It was not challenged or denied.
The group of six hon. Members behind me, who exude the feeling of being good people, were saying as I was speaking—of course, they did not speak loud enough for Mr. Speaker to hear—"bastard". They cannot deny it. The hon. Members for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) and Armagh went further than that. Indeed, the hon. Member for Belfast, South punched me in the chest in the Members' Lobby immediately afterwards.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. What happened outside the Chamber is not a matter for the Chair. But, whatever was said, the expression was not in good parliamentary taste and it should not be repeated.

Mr. Kilfedder: The Chairman—

Mr. McCusker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to state that that remark was not made by either me or my colleague the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the matter can now be left.

Mr. Kilfedder: That remark can be vouched for by the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig). Indeed, the Chief Whip of the Liberal Party was so incensed that he complained to the leader of the Powell group of six. I finish this nasty little episode now, but I shall deal with it in some detail before and during the General Election. Therefore, let them be warned.
After the La Mon House massacre, I came to this House to seek an emergency debate on the horror of what had happened when those people were burned alive and cruelly inflicted with injuries I wanted to debate that atrocity and security in Northern Ireland.
What did the Powell group of six Unionist MPs say to the Press? The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that they did not agree with an emergency debate on the La Mon House massacre in the circumstances. I was demanding a debate in the names of the Ulster people and expressing their anguish and cry for such a debate. Yet the Powell group of six did not want a debate and would not support my motion. They retrain silent, even as I say this now.
The Powell group of six, in collusion with the Government, have managed to get a debate on security in Northern Ireland on a Monday together with other Northern Ireland business. A complete day is being devoted to Northern Ireland business. As a result, there are not many Members present. As I said earlier, at most there were 20 Members apart from Northern Ireland Members, except at the very beginning when the Secretary of State made his opening speech.
The Ulster people were led to believe that this would be a great debate and that the walls of this Chamber would reverberate with their cry for law and order and action. In a sense, I am glad that they are not here to see the empty Benches and to listen to that nasty attack on me by that nasty man the hon. Member for Belfast, North.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman—indeed, all right hon. and hon. Members—whatever provocation may have been offered, must keep away from personalities.

Mr. Kilfedder: I shall leave that matter for the time being, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): Before the hon. Gentleman leaves his tirade, I should like to put one matter right for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Unfortunately he is not here, or he would put it right. The right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) was not made High Sheriff by the Secretary of State. I should have thought that his appointment was made by his colleagues on the Belfast Council.

Mr. Kilfedder: If the Minister of State looks into the matter he will find that the appointment falls within the control of the Secretary of State. The Belfast Council may make a recommendation, but the appointment comes from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
It is sad that I have to begin my speech today by replying to the unwarranted attack made upon me by the Powell group of six. This morning, before leaving for the airport, I called at the Ulster Hospital, Dundonald, to see the victims of the La Mon House atrocity. Whoever wrote the speech for the hon. Member for Belfast, North wishes perhaps to destroy those who would try to expose what


the Powell group of six are doing in the names, but not at the wish, of the Ulster people. I have been round my constituency and outside it. I know what is going on. Indeed, my cousin and his wife were the victims of a bomb attack near the border a few years ago. He had a remarkable escape, but she was killed by the IRA. She was killed because she happened to share the same name as myself. I did not expect, nor did I receive any sympathy from the group of six MPs behind me.
This morning I went again to the Ulster Hospital. I wish that Members could see those shattered young men and women. Some are terribly burned and are often in agony. Others have lost dear ones in that bomb outrage. If all hon. Members—in particular members of the Government—could see and speak to those people, they might have a better appreciation of the horror that the Government and their predecessors have allowed to exist for far too long. The message that I carry from those victims to this Government and this nation is simple and clear. It is "Destroy the Provisional IRA or shut up."
The people of Northern Ireland and I have had enough of successive Governments making nauseating statements, adopting nauseating postures of sympathy and engaging in a semblance of activity. That is of no use to those who have died and to those who have been mutilated. It is no protection to those who tonight and every night face death. The IRA must be destroyed.
Since 1969 the House has been repeatedly told that the actions of the security forces are dependent on the level of violence. At the weekend I received from a constituent a letter which had been sent to him on behalf of Lord Donaldson, who at the time was Minister of State. The letter, which is dated 20th May 1976, contains this simple statement:
The Secretary of State has explained to Parliament on a number of occasions that the activities of the security forces have continued to be related to the level of violence at any particular time and in any particular area.
The then Secretary of State, the present Home Secretary, like the hon. Member for Belfast, North and his colleagues, are good at smears but poor at action.
The application of that principle—I should describe it as a betrayal of law-

abiding people—means that the Army generally plays a basically defensive role on the instructions of the Government. It generally waits for something to happen and then responds to the incident or atrocity, as it did to the La Mon House slaughter, the shooting of the soldier and the murder of the civilian searcher at the street barrier in Belfast on Friday. There was one notable exception to that inactivity and the failure to root out and destroy. That was when the SAS shot dead a Provisional IRA terrorist in the Ardboe area recently.
I do not know whether it is true, but I have been told, and I fear, that an inquiry has already begun on the instructions of the Government. But what happens when the terrorists are given a taste of the terror that they mete out at random on innocent people? First, the Provisional IRA described the shooting as "murder" and said that the SAS patrol could have arrested the dead man because he raised his hands in the air to show that he was giving himself up. Imagine that. I do not accept the allegation that he had raised his hands in surrender. Imagine an IRA man holding his hands in the air when caught red-handed with bombs with which to destroy and kill. The Provisional IRA men gave none of the victims at La Mon House the opportunity of raising his hands in surrender or to avoid death or injury. Nor was that opportunity given to the young soldier or the woman civilian searcher who was shot dead in Belfast on Friday. They did not tell them to raise their hands or be shot.
No. Cruelly, cowardly and fiendishly they went about as students throwing flour until they were beside them and shot them dead. Does that warrant the sort of policy that this Government have been pursuing for so long? Does that warrant their waiting to react to violence and to the level of violence? I would say "No".

Rev. Ian Paisley: The reason why Miss Spence was shot was that she put herself before another member of the security forces. She was shot because she sought to shield a young British soldier from death.

Mr. Kilfedder: I am grateful for the hon. Member's intervention, because it proves what the Ulster people have to put up with. The Provisional IRA men


want to play at war and be live heroes. They do not want to be dead heroes. That is the message that I received from that incident. They want to kill and mutilate, but they do not want to be killed and mutilated in return. That is why there is an absolute necessity to introduce the death penalty to bring this terror to an end. It is the only way that it can be brought to an end. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Antrim, North for his shout of agreement, but I do not hear much response from the group of six.
Immediately after that shooting, Mr. Austin Currie, the Chief Whip of the SDLP, said that human life was still sacred in Northern Ireland and he wanted an inquiry. Who is to conduct an inquiry on behalf of those who have been slaughtered and tortured? Human life will be respected only when the reality of death is applied to the persons of the Provisional IRA who murder.
The troops in Northern Ireland have a tough and difficult role to perform. They have shown remarkable courage and restraint. Several hundred soldiers have been murdered on duty in what the former Home Secretary described as the war against the IRA. But it is a strange, one-sided war in which the only people who are fighting all out are the Provisional IRA—the enemy. I do not know whether there would have been less loss of soldiers' lives if there had been more decisive political direction of the security forces. I think so. But I am convinced that fewer civilians would have been murdered and far less destruction and mutilation caused if the Army had been allowed to root out and destroy the Provisional IRA rather than simply reacting to violence.
We need more Regular troops in Northern Ireland. There are about 13.500 troops in the Province at present. However, I dispute whether even half of them are actively involved in anti-terrorist activities at any one time. We need more troops. Here I disagree with the hon. Member for Antrim, South, who was reported by a Lobby correspondent shortly after the La Mon House atrocity as saying that he and his six Unionist colleagues did not want any more military activity in Northern Ireland. He went on to deny the need for more Regular troops in the Province. I say that

that is the wrong attitude. It is a foolish attitude which will result in more people dying in Northern Ireland.
In my opinion, the Regular troops should be operating in Ulster in such strength that they can swamp and smother every area from which the gunmen and bombers operate. That is the only way to stop them. The Government make all sorts of excuses for not doing this. But we have had nine years of terror which has cost the lives of over 1,800 civilians, soldiers and policemen—the equivalent of 63,000 dead in Great Britain. More troops are needed in the Province to protect life and limb by putting maximum restrictions on the movement of terrorists. The Government are frightened of what world opinion would be if the troops went all out against the IRA.
What a difference there would be if the IRA were operating, slaughtering and bombing shops, factories, homes, men and women and schoolchildren in any part of England—for example, in the Secretary of State's constituency. If that had been going on systematically, not for nine years but for nine weeks, we should have more of those Draconian measures that the former Home Secretary who is now in the EEC introduced to protect England and to send to Northern Ireland persons thought to be associated with terrorist organisations.
Some of the increased number of Regular troops would have to be made up from specialist units. We are told that the SAS has had success in South Armagh and in Republican areas on the west shore of Lough Neagh. We are told that these soldiers operate in and out of uniform. Is it not time that the Ulster Defence Regiment also operated in and out of uniform and had specially trained units able to strike back at the enemy in the same way as the SAS? The UDR could find out information which would put these men behind bars. The great advantage of the UDR is that it is made up of locally recruited men and women. They know the area.
I do not want to hear any more of these nauseating statements that we have heard from Government spokesmen and others to the effect that, although Northern Ireland is a financial drain on the United Kingdom, the Government are still prepared to bear that burden. The


real burden is being borne by the decent, law-abiding people of Ulster They are paying the price in blood, tears and anguish. No amount of money and compensation can substitute for that. There are millions of pounds spent on compensation for factories and shops which have been destroyed by the IRA. All this talk about the enforcement of law and order is a sad mockery when the Government are not prepared to take the necessary measures to root out and destroy the Provisional IRA.
For nine years the terrorists have defeated this Government and their predecessors. For nine years the law-abiding Ulster people have been deprived of their human and civil rights. Unless the Government crush the Provisional IRA terrorists, they will burn and destroy all the houses, factories, hotels, shops, houses and all the other buildings in Northern Ireland.
What is the score today? There have been 1,800 lives lost and 10 times that number injured, most of them badly mutilated. What is the cost? It is about £200 million to £250 million. Enough money has been paid out in compensation to have transformed the entire social life of the Ulster people. If that £250 million could have been utilised for the good of the Ulster people, it could have ensured a decent home for every family, particularly for the young people who are desperately in need of homes and who have to join a long housing waiting list. The money could have provided desperately needed jobs. We have twice the national average rate of unemployment. The money that has been paid out could have guaranteed a better future for the next generation.
What do the Government do in the face of a terrorism which is more evil than that experienced in any other part of the world? This is a terrorism which wages war against innocent, defenceless men, women and children, killing them without compassion, attacking school buses and the car in which a father was asking his two children to school. This is a terrorism which destroys property in Northern Ireland, thereby creating unemployment. It is a terrorism which bombs places of entertainment and recreation frequented by ordinary Ulstermen and women.
The supine attitude of the Government has engulfed the innocent people of Northern Ireland in a torrent of blood. I indict the Government in the name of the Ulster people. The Dublin Government brought half a dozen cases of alleged torture to the International Court. Tens of thousands of pounds were paid to so-called victims who today walk the streets with their families and lead normal lives. But who will charge the Provisional IRA with torture, with the ghastly burning of the victims of the La Mon House restaurant massacre? Who will charge the Provisional IRA with all the other mutilations, agonies and deaths from which Northern Ireland has suffered in nine long and bitter years?
Will the Dublin Government bring those Irishmen who have tortured and maimed innocent Ulster people before the International Court? Or is that accepted by Dublin as a good political offence for which there is no extradition? What goes on behind the scenes while all this slaughter and misery takes place in Ulster? Mr. Ford, the chief political adviser to the Secretary of State, makes his customary visits to Dublin. What does he talk about? I do not know. The House does not know and neither do the Ulster people. It seems that he talks about things which are not acceptable to the Ulster people. What he ought to talk about to the Dublin Government is the need for army-to-army co-operation, not just police co-operation. That is essential if we are to defeat the terrorists in the border areas, particularly in South Armagh.
The Government could have forced the Eire Government by now into signing the European agreement concerning the extradition of terrorists. Apart from Malta, Eire is the only country which, in refusing to sign the agreement, has shown itself prepared to harbour terrorists. I understand that one of the murderers of my cousin's wife is now in a safe sanctuary in the Republic. That unfortunate mother of a family was murdered. Her murderer is in the South. She was not involved with politics, and she got on well with her neighbours of all religions. Yet she was destroyed. The Irish Government have said emphatically that the murderers cannot be extradited from Southern Ireland because it is a political offence.
I say to the Government and I say to the Irish Republic that, if they allow the violence and the horror in Northern Ireland to continue beyond this year, they will stand condemned. The Government will have failed to defend the Ulster people. They will have lied to the Ulster people and their time will have run out. The Ulster people have suffered so much that they cannot take any more.
I would have thought—since the United Kingdom is a member of NATO, and since NATO is supposed to exist to resist attack from Russia and other Communist countries—that NATO would realise that it must not simply defend the front or the sides of its house but must watch what is going on at its back door. NATO ought to heed the bloody conflict that is taking place in Northern Ireland. The House can rest assured that the Soviet Union has not left Northern Ireland out of its reckoning. It makes use of every troubled part of the world. We have seen how the Soviet Union has acted, directly and indirectly, in Angola and the Horn of Africa. It seems that NATO is blind to what is happening at its back door. If Ulster falls, it might be too late for NATO to think about protecting its back door. The Government should force NATO to recognise that the United Kingdom has to wipe the terrorists off the face of Northern Ireland.
I am sorry to have taken so long. I had not intended to speak at such length. Unfortunately, the cacophony at the beginning of my speech warranted a reply. It was short compared with what I will give later. I wish to say that I deny what has been said by the hon. Member for Belfast, North. No matter what he and his colleagues say, they will get their message and their reckoning in a time that is not far off.

7.19 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I shall not enter into the argument between the hon. Members for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) and for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson). They can work that difference out to their own satisfaction. However, I was naturally intrigued by the reference to the gang of six—one for each county, apparently, and two better than the Chinese.
This is a very important debate on a very serious subject. As was demon-

Member for Down, North, for Belfast, North and for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), it is a subject that touches upon raw nerves and strong emotions. The situation is not made easier by the fact that the community in Northern Ireland is very small and so many of those who have been killed or maimed have been known to their Members of Parliament.
If the policy outlined in the speeches of some Northern Ireland Members, and, indeed, in the speeches of some Tory Members, were to be followed, we should intensify and worsen the problem. What is meant when it is suggested that more deliberate, more purposeful, more force-full policies should be pursued and that the enemy should be rooted out, destroyed and smothered on every acre? Does that mean that we are to adopt a policy of punishing—of smothering—whole communities for the actions of individuals, a policy of creating a pool in which terrorists can again swim? Is that what is meant by intensification of effort? Is that the policy which is wanted?
If that is the policy which is wanted, it will not root out and destroy the enemy. It will gain for him sympathy and support and enable him to swim again. However, it is the policy which has been advocated in some of the speeches we have heard. It is an understandable reaction to the horror that took place in Belfast a fortnight or so ago.
I do not believe that that is the right policy. I do not believe that it is right to talk about security as though it were a concept isolated upon the shelf, as it were, to be taken down rather like a book with the comment "This situation demands an intensification of security." Security is not like that. It is only part of the overall picture, a part which immediately comes to mind on the occurrence of another shooting, another killing or another massacre.
There is another part of the picture. I refer to the economic and social structure in which the atrocities occur. There is the political situation. There are the institutions which exist or do not exist.
We must try to view this problem not merely in terms of an immediate response to a challenge, important though that is, but in terms of trying to reach a solution which will commend itself to all those involved. I do not believe that all those


flooded with soldiers, more and more people in prison and an intensification and rooting out and destroying of the enemy. That policy alone will not bring the peace we all desire.
Another policy—the one the Secretary of State has been following—is that of using the police and the Army, of using careful police methods, the painful, time-consuming, laborious task of bringing people to justice in the courts. That policy cannot excite sympathy in people wanting immediate action. It does not bring immediate results, with one massacre and 12 people hanging from lamp posts, for example, as a sort of lynch law. However, it is the policy which must be followed and sustained because it depends upon the rule of law. It is a policy concerned to prevent there ever being an opportunity for sympathy to be felt for those put on trial and convicted of the terrible crimes that are perpetrated in Northern Ireland.
Hon. Members know where I stand on general questions relating to Northern Ireland. I doubt whether I have had one letter complaining about those who are at present in Long Kesh claiming alleged political status. A number of people have tried to raise the issue in various ways, but I have not received one letter from anyone in the Six Counties who is concerned about the general situation there. When we were following a policy of internment, when we had a more robust, more purposeful, a "root out and destroy" type of policy, my mail bags were full of complaints that people were wrongly interned and were being ill treated. I have had sufficient experience in these matters over the years to know that if such a complaint is not being made, there is not much sympathy from whatever community for those so held.
If we were to start on a policy of intensification of security measures, if we were to return to the high profile, the mass searches, the destruction of property, the tearing up of floor boards, the breaking of statues, the pulling out of fireplaces, requiring people to sign a slip of paper stating that they have no complaints, the important gains which have been made—for instance, the respect which the Royal Ulster Constabulary is

now gaining and about which the hon. Member for Belfast, West has spoken—could quickly be lost. Despite the deeply felt emotions, hon. Members should consider carefully whether some of the policies they advocate should be implemented.
There are other matters—the armies of the UDR, the armies of the RUC and so on—on which we can all agree. The police force must be properly armed and protected. I am not convinced that matching arm with arm will necessarily do the job. For example, if high-velocity machine guns were issued, it is probable that they would not be used because of the danger that one slip on the trigger in a crowded area could result in terrible tragedy. One must be sensible in seeking a solution.
If, however, it be wrong to think in terms of just a policy for security—as I say, I believe it to be more than that—one must pay proper attention to and give support to what the Government have sought to achieve in economic policy, in their efforts to maintain the shaky financial foundations of the Province and to bring more industry there.
However, there are some ways in which I believe that the whole picture has not been helped. If I may put it in this way, I believe that there has been a policy of drift.
When direct rule was imposed, it was to be seen as a policy of holding the balance among all the interests in the community. That, I believe, was the Government's intention. However, what has happened—I think that this has a bearing on the security issue—has been a drift in Government policy, part accidental, part perhaps deliberate, but nevertheless a drift.
For example, we have had Mr. Speaker's conference on electoral change and increased representation in Northern Ireland bringing out its recommendation. That report will come before the House and it will inevitably be passed, making a fundamental change in the constitutional position as established in 1920, without any real debate on the issues involved. It is part of the drift towards integration which some hon. Members opposite want.
We have had speeches from hon. Members on the Opposition Benches with talk


about giving more power back to local government now that they cannot get a devolved Government. Again, this is part of the drift towards integration. My fear is that, if we get another hung Parliament or another dangerous situation, local government will be dangled before the Ulster Unionists as another little bait at which they can nibble, as something which they deserve, as was done with the extra seats in the Six Counties.
There is this shift into integration, a drift by the Government basing their decisions on what is happening in Britain and not on what is good for Northern Ireland. This is a bad policy, a policy which has not been thought out, because it may well be that the casualties of policies in Britain are the people in Northern Ireland. We had that when the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) called his General Election and the power-sharing Executive failed. We had it when my right hon. Friend dangled the bait of talks on increased representation in April when this Government were tottering. Shall we have it again over local government?
I am the first Member representing an English constituency to speak in this debate. My fear is that, if we have a policy of drift continuing, if we have integration, if we have security not being seen in its whole political and economic context, there will be more people with sons serving in Northern Ireland coming to my surgery and asking "What are they doing there? Everybody in the club says that we should have no part in it".
It is a difficult job—in my case, perhaps especially difficult—to persuade people that while the Six Counties are part of the United Kingdom, our fellow citizens there are entitles to the protection of the British Army. It is difficult to explain that to them, and it is difficult also to explain why, if that be the case, the wishes of this Parliament are sometimes not observed by the majority in Northern Ireland.
If security is to be seen in its whole context, there is a need also in the political context for magnanimity and concession from the majority in the Six Counties if we are to create a situation in which terrorists will get no succour, whether from the Loyalist or the nationalist community, and in which the men who represent local parties in the Six

Counties can recognise the dignity, the rights and the claims of one another for a sharing and a concern in the Government—a devolved Government, not a sovereign Government.
That is the real question which we should have been debating tonight. It is sad that the only opportunity which we can so often have of talking about political developments rather than specific items appearing on the Order Paper comes when there is a massacre such as that at La Mon House, with British troops being shot and killed and families, from whatever side of the political divide they may happen to come, being bereaved, with guns shooting out over open graves and with widows and children left in suffering and misery.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. McCusker: When the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) said that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) had emptied the Chamber, I echoed his regret until I heard the outpouring of hate and abuse and misrepresentation in which the hon. Member then indulged. I am sorry that I have to extend the matter somewhat because I wish to enter a denial and put on record the truth in reply to the allegations which he made. I extend to the hon. Member the same invitation as he extended to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North, if he cares to take it up.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) is here, because he has been able to assure me that at no time did he tell the hon. Member for Down, North that I hurled such a term as was alleged from the Benches or in a Lobby at the hon. Member. I have stated that before, and I state it again now.
I wish also to rebut the allegation which the hon. Member for Down, North made and which was carried in the journal of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that I had been taken between this building and the Irish Embassy in an official car bearing the Irish Tricolour. In fact, I have never been so carried.

Mr. John Ellis: Does it matter?

Mr. McCusker: Unfortunately, these things do matter in Northern Ireland.


They must not be allowed to go unchecked and not denied. I am putting the record straight now, and I put that side by side with the other allegation which was made.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North is a fair man. His journal carried a copy of a letter which his party sent to me in July or August of last year, and in that letter allegations were made against me. I replied very plainly to it and clearly set out the position. I do not believe that my reply was ever published, although the original letter was published. I ask the hon. Member for Antrim, North to ensure fair play by now printing my letter in order to put the record straight.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The allegation was carried in the Fortnight magazine and it was quoted in a letter—I did not see the letter—and if the hon. Member wants his letter to be printed, that will certainly be done if he gives me a copy.

Mr. McCusker: The letter was sent to the chairman of the County Armagh Democratic Unionist Party, and as he had the original letter I hope that he will be able to give the hon. Member a copy and ensure that the reply is printed.
I do not deny that I visited the Irish Embassay or had dealings with the Irish Embassy. That is how I deal with a foreign Government. When I have constituency problems involving the payment of monetary compensatory amounts or the difficulties which food producers and growers have in their trade with the Irish Republic, I go to the Irish Embassy and sort out those problems there, as I should go to the embassy of any other foreign country. That is how I do my business, and I am not ashamed of it. I tell my constituents in County Armagh who have repeated that allegation that that was the sole purpose of most of my visits, although I do not deny that I have also attended one social occasion there.
I hope that what I have said will set the record straight and end what has been an unfortunate interlude in the debate which, as the hon. Member for Down, North said—I accept this from him—may well be out of touch with the reality of the La Mon disaster.
In the years 1975 and 1976 over 50 of my constituents were murdered, and

murdered in the most ferocious and horrible circumstances. If I had not tried to exercise some restraint and make a positive contribution in debates here, which, I hope, led to an improvement in the security tactics in Armagh, we might not have had the relatively changed situation that we now have there. Emotional outbursts and attacks on fellow Unionists, despite the provocation, will not improve that situation.
On reflection, with his experience, background and education, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will concede that he should have known better than to react as he has done tonight to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North. My hon. Friend emphasised that he was speaking personally. In some things that he said he could have been representing my views, and in others he was not.

Mr. Kilfedder: I deprecate this matter, which was brought into the debate by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson). I am prepared to accept what the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) said about the Eire Embassy. As I said, I was repeating what was stated in a paper. I accept what he says. I do not wish this ugly argument to go on. It does no good to Northern Ireland.

Mr. McCusker: I echo that.
With the benefit of a little hindsight, Mr. Speaker, and from your short experience of Northern Ireland over the past weekend, you will know that it is now possible for the Ulster people to view 1977 free of their rose-tinted spectacles, and for others to do the same. Those glasses have been savagely knocked aside—more brutally and quickly than we perhaps expected—and ground under the heel of the Provisional IRA.
In 1977, 11 of my constituents—11 too many—were murdered, as distinct from 50 in the previous year. But that did not herald the dawning of a day of victory and an era of peace for all the decent people of Northern Ireland. At best, it was an indication that the initiative could be seized and that ground could be gained from the terrorists. Experience of the past few weeks has shown how foolish it was to consider that the seizure of the initiative could be more than a short-term advantage, if, given the opportunity


and the conditions, the experienced terrorists will soon be back on top again dictating the terms to which the police and the Army can only react. That is precisely what I believe happened. We gained an initiative. We took advantage of a series of circumstances which existed in Northern Ireland last year. For perhaps the first time in nine years we gained an initiative and made some inroads into the terrorists. But we were unable to sustain that, and in the first couple of months of this year the terrorists have been dictating the terms once again.
It is therefore important to try to analyse the situation and to determine what factors have reversed the trend of 1977. As I see it—I judge from the Secretary of State's speech that he sees it almost the same way—there were external and internal factors. Having failed to deal with them, the Provisional ERA has rebuilt its superiority on those particular factors.
The first of the external factors has already been quoted—the attitude of the Government of the Republic, particularly the Prime Minister, Jack Lynch. His words in early January must have been music to Provisional ears. I pay tribute here to the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who said that his political belief and ambition was a united Ireland. That is a legitimate political aspiration which I would not deny to any man in Northern Ireland or Southern Ireland.
But Jack Lynch was saying more than that. He was asking that this Government take unilateral action and make a declaration of withdrawal. In his own words, he was proclaiming the legitimacy of the same basic objective as the Provisionals. He perhaps found their methods distasteful, but, after all, an amnesty would be considered eventually.
That was not the language or the attitude of the previous Government of the Republic. The Provisionals had not heard language like that for four years. With their forces depleted, with Northern community rejection and Southern apathy, their batteries were surely charged with some good old-fashioned republicanism, with the compliments of Leinster House in Dublin.
The second external factor is linked with the first—the failure of the security

forces in the Republic to prevent terrorists from using their territory as a base from which to launch attacks on Northern Ireland. I do not blame Dublin for using the 2 per cent. statistic to dodge this issue. That mechanism, agreed between the Northern Ireland Office and the Dublin Government for the exchange of information, should never have been introduced by the Secretary of State unless it was intended to bombard the Government of the Republic into accepting the need for an extradition treaty.
The Republic is being used, and on a growing scale, as a base and a sanctuary by the Provisional IRA. I do not intend to bore the House with the details—they are well known and documented and the Secretary of State has already referred to them—but it is interesting that, in a court last week, a senior police officer stated that the Provisional unit based in Keady, in my constituency, had been broken up but that it had re-formed and was operating from across the border in Castle Blayney. No one now needs to guess who was responsible for the serious gun battle between the Provisionals and the Army on the borders of my constituency last night.
I have referred previously to the fact that the Army knows of the existence of other so-called active service units of the Provisional IRA operating from the Republic. Hon. Members on both sides who have visited Bessbrook Army base will have seen the map displayed there pinpointing their existence. Those units are obviously not under canvas ready to mount their next operation, but the existence of the localities and the places where they group to mount their operations are known. If we know that, the Dublin authorities know it. When those authorities, and the Gardai and the Irish Army, harry those people until there is no hiding place left for them I will begin to accept their oft-repeated assurances.
The only real answer, as was said several years ago, is an extradition treaty. For once, international and European opinion is on our side. Despite what the hon. Member for Belfast, West said, Her Majesty's Government should exert the maximum pressure—I will not argue its precise form, but we must have some diplomatic pressure—to expose the hypocrisy of the excuse of political offences when applied to murders like those at


La Mon and to show it up for what it is, political expediency. If the Government of Eire are prepared to take full advantage of membership of the EEC, surely we can show them up for the hypocrites they are and insist that they sign the convention.
The first of the internal factors is the failure to deal with those who plan and orchestrate the violence. Those people were referred to as the "godfathers" by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave). I congratulate him on having consistently brought this point to our attention when some of us were perhaps slackening. These people form the vital component, just like the detonators in the bombs, the volunteers and the materials for terrorism which will always be available in Northern Ireland if one has the money for the materials and the history to generate the volunteers. So long as these men are at large, so long will the campaign continue. The Secretary of State knows of their existence and he knows that the police had the right men a few weeks ago.
The document I now propose to refer to did not come from any police officer or member of the security forces. It came from a journalist who has the information. I was going to read out the names, but it has been put to me that it would not be in the best interests of all concerned. I am speaking now not from personal considerations but in the long-term interests of nailing these people.
These are some of the people who were picked up and who were known to be the men because they had been named in statement after statement by young fools who were sucked into the net and used by them. The first is Mr. R—that is the initial letter of his second name—not well known to the public, but the Provos top weapons expert in Belfast. Ironically, he received most of his training when he served as a member of the UDR in 1970–71. I wonder whether he was one of the people about whom the hon. Member for Belfast, West talked. The next is Mr. McC, an ex-internee and a sniper during the early years of the troubles. Incidentally, I did not mean to give the first names. The next is Mr. C from Monagh Road, member of a veteran Republican family and now on the brigade staff of the IRA.
So the list goes on. These are people

who have learned how to avoid crossing the line into criminal and terrorist activity but who can send in young men and use them for their evil intent. These people must be hunted, and if the existing law cannot deal with them we must ask the Secretary of State to consider whether new laws could be devised that would deal with them.
If they are outside normal law, perhaps we need abnormal law. We have an abnormal situation in Northern Ireland. If the Secretary of State says that he is not prepared to do that, but he knows that they are the men responsible, he must swallow hard and deal with them by the means available to him. If he does not want to intern them—and I should be reluctant to do that if I were he—he should look very hard at trying to devise another system of handling them. If we do not get them this time, we shall not get them next time. If we cannot get them on La Mon and other issues, they have learnt just a bit more from their seven days' experience on this occasion and they will be harder to trip up when they are lifted again.
Many of these shadowy figures are involved in the seamy activities of the Provisionals' front organisations, which should be tackled. Everyone knows that these activities—I think they are called legitimate business activities—were built on extortion, corruption and the proceeds of robbery carried out by terrorists. If we can set up teams of detectives to investigate other organisations, why do we not set up teams of detectives to investigate these instead of having the Housing Executive pouring its funds into them to give them a veneer of respectability and enhance their reputation?
In the United States 30 or 40 years ago the authorities could not get the Mafia for murder but got Mafia members for income tax evasion. If we cannot catch these people for murder, cannot we gel them for some other offence and tackle these organisations vigorously, trying to establish how the Provisionals ever came into possession of them?
There is also the Provisional Sinn Fein a so-called legitimate political organisation. It never fights elections. It has none of the manifestations of a normal political party. In fact, it is not a political party. It is the propaganda mouthpiece of the IRA, and it is an


affront to the people of Northern Ireland. It makes a mockery of the activities of the Army, the police and the Secretary of State.
That is why people believe that the Army is fighting with one hand tied behind its back, that comment is frequently made in Northern Ireland. One tries to explain that that is not so and then people start telling one of the things that indicate to them why it is.
Let us deal with the Provisional Sinn Fein in the way in which we deal with the Provisional IRA. They are one and the same thing. If this war is to be won, we must fight it with all the means at our disposal and show that we have the will to win.
I turn finally to the issue touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux)—the matter or sentences. Like most people in Northern Ireland—and I make no apology for this—I am not concerned with arguing the merits of a deterrent. I believe that people who inflict on any society what terrorists have for too long inflicted on Northern Ireland should be punished accordingly. It is interpreted as lack of determination when our courts sentence people to eight, 10 or 20 years and those people are automatically released after half that time.
The Minister of State will remember that we were assured when the 50 per cent. remission was introduced that anyone who was granted the remission would be liable to serve all or part of the remainder if he was subsequently convicted of an imprisonable offence in addition to the new sentence imposed for the fresh offence. If that was the price to get rid of political status, many of us were prepared at the time to agree with it, but I think now, in retrospect, that it was too heavy a price. As that assurance was given, there may well have been a realistic deterrent attached to it. But for the period for which I have statistics, the period until September 1977, 33 people who were released on 50 per cent. remission were reconvicted, and 16 of them were sentenced to imprisonment, nine for scheduled offences, serious terrorist offences. In none of the nine did the courts make use of its power to order all or part of the balance of the original sentence to be served.
In view of the assurances given to us at the time, I ask the Secretary of State to examine the matter carefully and look into whatever mechanism is necessary to bring this information to the attention of the courts when they are imposing sentences. Otherwise, remission makes a mockery of the whole system.
When referring to the number of security forces deployed in Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State translated it into Great Britain terms and said that it would be the equivalent of 1·2 million. He rightly did that in order to impress us with the scale of the operation. I also want to translate a Northern Ireland statistic into Great Britain terms—not the overriding statistic, which would be almost too big to comprehend, but the number of policemen killed. In Great Britain terms it would be 4,500.
Would the Secretary of State honestly suggest that if 4,500 policemen, or even a fraction of that number, were killed in Great Britain we would be arguing the merits of capital punishment? He could not in all honesty say that if there were even, say, 1,000 policemen killed in this country in a period of nine years the authorities would not be hanging the murderers as often as they could catch them.
Many people in Northern Ireland consider that capital punishment is the only fate the killers deserve. What possible glamour or martyrdom can be attached to the memory of men who killed babies, children or cripples? I say sincerely, and not for cheap publicity or any other such reason, that by refusing to deal with the terrorists as they deserve to be dealt with the House is once again running away from its responsibilities.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) has made a powerful contribution to what has inevitably been a sad, at times heated and at times emotional debate. The debate is made sadder than it might have been for me because I was once a Green Jacket and the Royal Green Jackets are, alas, the only regiment in the British Army now to have lost two commanding officers killed in action in Northern Ireland. At the same time, we mourn the death of Rifleman Nicholas Smith at the weekend.
It is perhaps worth noting that before Christmas the Second Battalion of the Green Jackets was providing fire protection in a part of London where many Members have their homes.
I have also been concerned about the debate because the Secretary of State felt it necessary once again to say that the tide of public opinion was turning against the terrorists. I have attended most of the debates on Northern Ireland security and most of the Northern Ireland Office Question Times over the last eight years, and I suppose that I must have heard from successive Ministers the phrase "The tide of public opinion has turned against the terrorists" more than 50 times. Every time it is used by a Minister, it does not strike a happy note in my book. It merely reminds me of the substantial number of false dawns that we have seen in the past.
At this late hour, I want to make only two brief points. First, both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have at various times agreed that it is right that no British Service man serving in Northern Ireland should suffer a financial penalty for so doing. But, alas, it is still the case that many soldiers who are going to Northern Ireland, particularly those on emergency tours from Germany, suffer very substantial financial penalties.
When I was in Northern Ireland recently with my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude), we met a substantial number of soldiers who were losing more than £10 a week as a result of serving in Northern Ireland and losing various allowances thereby. It does not seem unreasonable, therefore, to increase the payment made to British service men for the tours they do in Northern Ireland from 50p a day to £10 a week. At least, one would then be reasonably sure that very few Service men were suffering financial loss.
The cost would be, on the present level of troop involvement, some £7 million a year. But the cost overrun on two computer contracts that have gone wrong amounts to some £10 million in the Defence Estimates this year, so I do not believe that that sum would be beyond our

capacity to pay—and, as I have said, both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have accepted the proposition that it is wrong that a British Service man moving to dangerous and uncomfortable duty in Northern Ireland should also suffer a financial penalty as a result.
My second point is on a statistic that the Secretary of State did not give us. He referred to the increases in recruitment for both the RUC and the UDR and to the substantial increase in the number of convictions. But he did not tell us anything about the number of members of the minority community who are joining the security forces.
I fully appreciate the immense pressure that there is on those members of the minority community who are serving in the RUC and the UDR. The smaller the number, the greater the pressure; the more they stand out, the more they are isolated within their own community. I can well understand the attitude of the Secretary of State in the last few months while the tide of violence seemed to be receding and while the amount of information coming in which enabled the courts to convict terrorists was growing.
But, as the Chief Constable has said, information is not enough. What is needed is the involvement of the minority community in the security of the Province. I have no doubt that the greatest single improvement in the security situation that could come about would be created not by sending more troops from the rest of the United Kingdom to Northern Ireland but by a really substantial recruitment of members of the minority community into the RUC and the UDR.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) made a most unfair and generalised criticism of the UDR, but even he was ready to admit that the reputation of the RUC within the Roman Catholic community had very substantially improved in recent months. There has been no lead, however, from the SDLP to the members of the minority community to involve themselves directly in the battle against terrorism.
I should like to know what pressures have been put on by the Secretary of State in the discussions about power sharing, about a new constitution and about a new political framework to try to get a fair cross-section of the minority


community into the security forces. We have at various times heard a great deal about power sharing, but if we are ever to get peace in Northern Ireland we have to talk a great deal more about security sharing as well.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: Whilst every Member in the Chamber feels exceedingly troubled about this subject, it must be stated that we do not expect the Secretary of State or the Minister of State to become clairvoyant in a very difficult situation. There are things which, because of the very nature of urban terrorism, they simply cannot do. One appreciates that. They cannot possibly know where terrorism will evidence itself next or how intensely.
We would be less than fair if we created the impression that there was total lack of concern on the part of Her Majesty's Government. Having said that, it is important to stress that, where reaction can and must be forthcoming in response to the dreadful acts of the terrorists, the Government must pursue every possible way of reacting so that terrorism may be eradicated. The reaction must be full and it must be ruthless.
We expect at least four courses of action. First, we expect her Majesty's Government to put pressure on the Government of the South of Ireland to bring about extradition. It has been said—indeed, I said it in the very early hours of this morning—that the South is enjoying all the benefits of living in the twentieth century. The South is taking advantage of membership of all the conventions, assemblies, communities and so on which exist in the European context, but it manifestly refuses to accept its responsibilities in living in the twentieth century. It still has its dreadful nineteenth-century entrenched reaction and attitude to the United Kingdom, and, indeed, to Northern Ireland.
That attitude is exhibited in the refusal to sign the European treaty which would bring about the extradition of political prisoners. I care not how Her Majesty's Government enforce extradition. It is no longer a question of an optional extra. It is an entirely necessary pursuit in the face of the fact that we know that there are pockets of terrorists who are not being encountered by the police or the

army of the Republic. It really must be regarded as an essential part of Her Majesty's Government's policy to pursue extradition from the South.
It has been said that terrorists do not recognise the border. That is not true. They recognise it when it suits their own purposes. I take no great pleasure in suggesting this, but if terrorists, when it suits their purpose, refuse to recognise the border, I hope that by some method or other the SAS will also not feel limited or confined by a geographical line. If we cannot root out these terrorists by agreement with the Government in the South, those whose task it is to work in a covert manner should not be over-anxious to recognise the existence of the border.
Secondly, we expect Her Majesty's Government to make every attempt to apprehend terrorists before dreadful deeds such as that at La Mon House take place. I shall not expand on that incident at length, because it has been adequately dealt with by my colleagues on this Bench.
I return to the possibility of proscribing the Provisional Sinn Fein. I do not let the president of Official Sinn Fein easily off the hook, because that man did not dissociate himself from the violent statements by his political allies when they talked about sending British soldiers back in boxes. He did not protest when young British soldiers were threatened by this kind of violent speech in Dublin and in Belfast. He may have made some comment about the Provisional IRA fighting against the Irish people and hurting the Irish people, but the attitude of those who share this Bench is that we do not distinguish members of the United Kingdom who live on the mainland and who wear the uniform of Her Majesty's Armed Forces.
If the president of Official Sinn Fein still regards those men as legitimate targets—and he does—and if the Provisional Sinn Fein still regards them as traditional targets—and it does—it is incumbent upon the Government to take the necessary action to proscribe these organisations and to bring their members to the courts. I believe that by doing so we would be meeting at least in part, the absolute necessity to apprehend terrorists before the dreadful deeds are committed.
The Provisional and Official Sinn Fein have long since forfeited their right to be thought of as political groupings or parties. They have no policy on housing except that Protestant houses have to be up in the air. They have no policy on industry except that it should be completely destroyed. They are following systematically the threefold policy of international Marxism—the destruction of the Government, the destruction of the credibility of the security forces and the destruction of the economy. The Provisional Sinn Fein follows that policy to a T, as does the Official Sinn Fein. Therefore, the Government really must look at the possibility of apprehending the strategists who masquerade behind a political label. They are there, and they can and ought to be apprehended.
I live not one and a half miles from the Twinbrook area. I live within a stone's throw of Andersonstown. The Army, the police and the UDI know these men, who are hiding behind the political label and are as guilty as sin. We cannot afford another La Mon House incident, and one of the ways of removing that possibility is to haul in those who can possibly be arrested once we remove this charade of a political label.
Thirdly, we expect the Secretary of State to tell the General Officer Commanding in Northern Ireland that all his attempts will be supported in this House, whatever inconvenience his policy causes in minority areas or, for that matter, in majority areas. I am quite tired of hearing it said that we must balance a reaction which might ensue from the minority against the worthwhileness of adopting a policy of truly policing the minority areas with the police and the UDI.
I am not a military strategist and I do not pretend to have slick or easy answers, but the present policies have failed. That is quite clear. The past policies have failed. That is easy to see. What is now so wrong with allowing the UDI and the police into those areas? We do not ask that they should bludgeon insensitively every person who lives there, or that they should act with dreadful indiscretion, but there are those who, because they are allowed to move freely, can both plan and initiate the dreadful bombings.
I believe that the people in the minority community have reached the point where they would co-operate with the UDR and the RUC. I believe it because it has been expressed clearly to me by members of the minority community.
There is another aspect to the guidance which the GOC must now give. I accept that, technically speaking, the present Secretary of State and, perhaps, his predecessors have never at any stage directly determined security policy. I must also say that there are those who believe that certain past GOCs have been placed in positions of authority in Northern Ireland because their own political ideas were well known and because they would not in any way conflict with those of the Government of the day.
I hope that the present Secretary of State has long since relinquished any thoughts of military neutrality in Northern Ireland and of balancing off military strategy against political reaction. I hope that he has long since left those thoughts aside and that the present GOC has been appointed knowing that that is the mind of the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. If that is not the case, and if the GOC does not encourage the UDI to operate fully and without any undue regard for the rights of terrorists, the morale of the UDR will very soon diminish. It is not at a high point at the moment. It is certainly not low, but it is not as high as it might be. The UDR will become an effective organisation and fighting unit only if the GOC makes it abundantly clear that from now on it can operate in every area of Belfast.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) is right. I was told categorically from colonel level down that the UDR must not and is not permitted to operate. I do not know how we get through to the GOC that that situation must not obtain much longer. However, the message must get through, and it must be got through by the Secretary of State.
The same goes for the RUC. It operates in most areas of Northern Ireland, but we cannot ask it to operate unless it is armed and equipped to do so. We have been told that only 30 of the 80 armoured vehicles are at present available to the RUC. Why has there been such a dreadful delay in making available the other 50 vehicles? I do not know, but is it possible that in


Londonderry an armoured vehicle might have saved the life of a policeman? I do not know, and I am asking the question, but, if that might be so, why has there been such great delay in putting into operation the other 50 vehicles?
I listened with interest to the Secretary of State when he said that about 1,063 M1 carbines are available to the police. I find that interesting in view of a statistic that I received not long ago. It was suggested that the number of M1 carbines available was nearer 300 than 1,063. It may be that there are two sorts of weapon. It may be that one is a rather newer model than the other. However, we need the most up-to-date weaponry. If the figure that I was given is correct, it is rather a paltry number of sophisticated weapons to be placed at the disposal of over 5,500 policemen.

Mr. Concannon: The figure was 463.

Mr. Bradford: It was my fault for not picking up the correct figure. However, it is a paltry figure when we bear in mind that there are over 5,500 policemen and approximately 450 weapons available to them.
I turn to the final point of my short contribution—namely, the vexed issue of the death penalty. I can sense the difficulties that are entertained by those who oppose it. There are the vexed issues of hostages being taken and young people being asked to do the dastardly deeds that those over 18 would have done prior to hanging being introduced. I accept that, but I still have two great difficulties.
One difficulty is that society must have such a sufficiently elevated opinion and value of human nature as not to settle for less than a commensurate type of punishment for a dastardly crime. A society which does not take that sort of view of human life and human personality is not a civilised society. I am concerned not about terrorists but about punishment.
The second difficulty is the question of timing. The application of the death penalty is the important factor in the situation in which hostages may be taken. It is not for me to do the Government's thinking for them. However, I look back to the time when we had a full House and when among it was one man who has a tenuous link with subversive organisations. He was here to vote against capital punishment. I am quite

certain that terrorists conveyed the message that it was one reaction from the Government that they would not want.
I acknowledge that the nature of applying capital punishment to terrorists and the timing of it might exercise the Government's mind. I am not especially desiring hanging, but, if a man is caught with a bomb or is apprehended after being responsible for blowing up a young girl or a young child, let us not waste any time in disposing of that man. Let us not give the organisation to which he belongs the opportunity to take hostages. If hostages are taken afterwards, I take no unholy delight in saying that we may have to reach the stage when the war of attrition exercises the mind of the House and one hostage dead means two IRA men dead. Let hon. Members put their figure on it, but something has to be done in Northern Ireland, and done very quickly, if we are to avert a great tragedy.

Mr. Speaker: I appeal for the cooperation of the House. I hope that the first of those who are to reply will begin at 10 minutes past nine o'clock. I deliberately do not ask hon. Members to be brief in view of the seriousness of the subject. However, if everyone is to speak who has been rising to participate, it will he a great help if we have speeches which last about 10 minutes, although the House knows that I cannot control the length of speeches.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Martin Flannery: I shall try to be brief. I am usually brief in these debates. Those who participate know one another and we know who wish to speak. I am sure that hon. Members will pay tribute to the fact that I always stay in the Chamber throughout Northern Ireland Questions. I only wish that more of my colleagues were present to hear these debates.
I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State resisting the temptation held out by some hon. Members to introduce even more Draconian measures in Northern Ireland. Nothing would be more fatal. In debating security we need some insight into the word "security". I have the impression that we are not merely debating putting guns into the hands of people and sensing security from that aspect alone. We want to make the lives of the people of Northern Ireland


more secure. There are many ways of doing that. It does not necessarily follow that to take more soldiers from here to Northern Ireland is one of the ways of making the people more secure. I may be wrong, but I consider that there are sufficient soldiers in Northern Ireland.
I do not believe that capital punishment would have any effect other than deepening the situation. It would inevitably mean that there would be hostages. It would inevitably mean a deepening or intensification of the struggle. It would mean more killings. It would mean more striking back more regularly. It would mean all that such a measure implies.
I know that hon. Members from Northern Ireland are bearing all the frustrations of living in that area. I am sure that they will remember that on the last occasion that I spoke in a Northern Ireland debate I paid tribute to them and said that I did not want in any way to be paternalistic as I did not live in the area. I repeat that. The tensions under which hon. Members from Northern Ireland are living were borne out tonight in the internecine squabble that broke out. That is natural in the circumstances. I do not wish to exploit it or to go into it.
I believe that the failure to solve the problem in Northern Ireland over the past eight or nine years has caused great frustration amongst us all, and frustration is a bad guide when deciding what one should do. Even though it is there, and it is real, to me it is a guide which regularly results in demands which otherwise would not be made. I believe that the demands for capital punishment, for more soldiers to be sent to the Province, and so on, represent that kind of demand.
We all know that security is necessary. Heaven forfend that I should in any way convey the impression that I do not believe in security as much as does anybody else, but security is only part of the answer. Hon. Members have often said that I always try to politicise the debates. I do, because I believe that the politicisation of these debates in the correct direction would do away with the feeling of frustration suffered by us all. I was sad when I ruminated about the contribution of the hon. Member for

Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and realised that there was literally no politics in anything that he said, because politics is the answer. The answer is not more guns.
I said last time that anybody who thinks that we shall solve this problem by dealing only with security is living in a dream world. There was a kind of euphoria about the previous debate because for a long time there had not been any killings. I cannot remember my exact words, but hon. Gentlemen opposite nodded in agreement when I said that unless a political solution was at least beginning to be seen, the killing would start again—and it has started again—because people could not see an end to the problem. They cannot see any opening, any light at all in what is going on. We thought that the problem was decreasing. There was a lull, but problems are now arising again.
Security is only part of the answer. After the best part of 10 years no solution to this terrible, intractable problem is even remotely visible. Later this evening we shall discuss appropriation measures and pass them. They are necessary because the money is needed for education, agriculture, and so on. Those are all aspects of security. Money to give people a decent life, a decent education, better food, and so on, is money spent on aspects of security that need to be discussed.
However, a great deal depends upon hon. Gentlemen opposite from the majority community. Whether or not they like it, the minority community feels just as insecure as they do, and some extension across the two communities is the answer to security. I have said time and again that until people feel secure with one another, the problem will not be solved. I do not think that we can measure security in terms of whether Catholics join the RUC or one of the other establishments. That is not the answer. People will feel secure only when they do not see the need to join such organisations. I feel that we are failing the people there, and failing one another. It is only when people feel secure with one another that terrorism will be defeated.
What is needed is concrete proof that steps are being taken so that communalist politics, as they used to exist in India when I was there years ago, disappear


and are replaced by community politics across the two communities. If we do not find that key we shall for years be discussing security and asking for it in Northern Ireland. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to raise their voices in their community so that there is an extension of democracy from the two sides of the divide. If that can be achieved there will be less of a demand for guns.
The Times was quoted earlier today as having said "Dublin loses patience". That is printed in the biggest letters that The Times uses when it is really excited. I have written at the side "Not only Dublin loses its patience, but hon. Gentlemen are losing theirs". I tend to lose my patience, and the minority community is losing its patience, too. We must ask why we are all losing our patience. The answer is that we can see no end to the difficulty.
We seldom discuss the politics of the situation. We talk merely about security. The Times said:
The House of Commons returns today with blighted hopes to the subject of security policy in Northern Ireland… It is neither surprising nor a matter for despair that the IRA has managed to raise its rate of striking after a longish period of Jecline and has retained its ability to kill soldiers"—
and so on. The Times puts it neatly, and it tries to give us some hope.
We know that the Republic has reassessed and is reassessing its political life. Before the elections took place last year people said that this issue was not deeply felt in the Republic. But the party that was triumphant made Northern Ireland one of its main political platforms in its policy statement. It is revealed to me that both parties in the South have reassessed the situation. I do not know what Conor Cruise O'Brien would say, but The Times states that Garret Fitzgerald is tentatively taking a new approach and moving slightly towards Fianna Fail. A reassessment has gone on. It is political. We must take that into account.
I have never said that this would be easy. But some political movement has to take place. Security cannot be discussed in vacuo away from the politics of the situation. But in Ireland at present, and in Northern Ireland in particular, practically no political movement is

taking place. It is because of the lack of political movement that one is having to re-discuss security. Until that political movement begins to take place, and until we can share one another's attitudes and lean on one another's conviction to try to solve the problem, that frustration will exist. Any lack of democracy will mean more terrorism.
Therefore, we must discuss how we can democratise the two sides of the Northern Ireland community. The answer lies not merely in discussing security nor in demands for more arrests, more soldiers or such matters as capital punishment. It lies in a new approach on behalf of the two communities in Northern Ireland. It lies with those people on both sides of the divide who are trying to expand democracy, so that both communities will recognise that the fighting can stop. The answer does not lie in our talking about guns, arrests, capital punishment and the like.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. Wm. Ross: It is well known that many hon. Members have had the privilege and the burden of commanding men in time of war. Indeed, there are hon. Members among those from Northern Ireland who have served during times of war and commanded men. I once had charge of seven men, nearly as far down the chain of command as one can go. It is a sobering burden when one commands men in any faction of the security forces in Northern Ireland. I served with the old B Specials. There was always a chance that one of my men would be killed. Because of that, I always took the best care of their lives as I possibly could.
When one looks at security activity over the last year—I have looked at it fairly because of my own experience, even at that level—one sees that there was an initial success. Public reaction to that success was extremely favourable. There was no complaint at all except from the fellow travellers of the IRA and those do-gooders who do not have to attend funerals of policemen, as I had to do on Friday.
In his opening speech the Secretary of State talked about the number of people who have been brought before the courts and who have been imprisoned. The figure was almost 2,000. I believe it is


fair to say that the vast majority were members of the IRA.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said that in 1969 the IRA was at best a very weak force. Like myself, other hon. Members may not take very much comfort from the fact that nearly 2,000 people have gone to prison. We must also ask what has happened in that intervening period which has allowed that force to grow to such an extent that it can withstand a loss of nearly 2,000 people in two years and still sustain the campaign that it has been carrying out over the last month or six weeks. The principal reasons have been the policies of the two Front Benches in this House. That is something that we should not be too willing to forget.
I believe that the IRA's losses in the past year have been mainly in the second and third ranks. The outer layers were decimated, but the most dangerous men are still at large. What was the IRA's reaction to the successes of the security forces? The hard core of the IRA, having remained untouched, tightened up the organisation and has spent the last few months reorganising, retraining and bringing in new blood.
What can be done to take the initiative from the terrorists and put it back into the hands of the security forces? I do not want to repeat the many wise remarks that have been made so far. The Government's options are few. Leaving aside capital punishment, they could intern, change the law to tilt it firmly and decisively against the terrorist, tighten up existing procedures and try to get the best possible deal out of them or do nothing.
I doubt whether they would intern and I doubt that they would do nothing. I also doubt that they are prepared to change the law in a meaningful way. They will probably get the best they can out of existing legislation.
I should be failing in my duty as a representative from Northern Ireland if I said that I thought that this action would be enough. I do not believe that it would be. The enemy is clearly outwith the capabilities of existing laws. He has their measure and knows how to get round them.
We should look at the effects of a further run of IRA successes on the morale

not only of the security forces but of the citizens of Northern Ireland who are being slaughtered. Hon. Members will know how difficult it is to pin down a mobile force of three or four men—the sort of active service units that are bombing, shooting and killing. I am aware of the problems of trying to get men and vehicles in and out quickly, and when I hear the comments of some people, I wonder how much thought these critics of the security forces have given to this problem.
I speak not as one who takes only an academic interest but as one who worked on the ground for years, who did the job in his area and who knows the problem better than any other hon. Member from Northern Ireland. I say that not to belittle my hon. Friends, but because it is a fact. I am open to correction if any hon. Member wishes to correct me. Even with the most sophisticated means available to the security forces, it is exceedingly difficult to pin down highly trained groups of men. But they must be caught, because until they are imprisoned or killed, the murders will continue.
The Secretary of State indicated that many of the raids into Northern Ireland have been organised from the South. I know from my inquiries and understanding of the situation that this is so. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us where the machine guns originated and, most important, how they got into Ulster? Can he also say what he is doing about the Hotspur, which is an essential vehicle for the police? Can he assure us that he is satisfied with the standard and frequency of weapons training for the police and the military?
Has the RUC had explained to it the capabilities of the M1 carbine? Have the men on the ground who have to use this weapon been told why it was bought for them? Have the members of the RUC ever been lectured on ballistics? Have they ever been told the advantages and disadvantages of the high-velocity light bullet? Have they been told the advantages and disadvantages of the SLR? Do they understand these things? I believe that if the men on the ground understood such things, if they were told the reasons why such weapons were in their hands, there might be fewer complaints from that quarter.
I am a sportsman and have always taken an interest in firearms. I understand why these weapons have been given to the police and why different weapons have been given to the Army. I understand, in a way that most people do not, the capability that is in the hands of the police if they are properly trained to use weapons correctly. If men are to use weapons properly, they must handle them every day. Having 463 weapons issued is not enough. Unless the men who have to handle these weapons are trained and use them regularly—at least once a month on the range and between times in the barracks—they will get themselves killed. It is a fact of life that, if men are to be given weapons, they must be trained in their use.
Have the members of the security forces, principally the police, had explained to them the strategy and thinking behind what they are doing on the streets? Have they been taken into the confidence of their senior officers? Do they know why they are doing what they are doing? This trustworthy body of men should be given a better understanding than they seem to have of the reasons for their present actions.
When will the Secretary of State give us his opinion on the possible use of the plastic sheet mentioned by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight)? I understand that this matter has been brought to the notice of the Northern Ireland Office. I understand that there have been one or two cases in which this substance has been used and in which it was very effective against the Hook bomb. May we have a decision on that matter as soon as possible?
Will the Secretary of State also be more willing in future to take action against people who make unfounded allegations about the security forces and waste the time of the police? This scandal in Northern Ireland must not be allowed to continue. Will the right hon. Gentleman look again at the present policy adopted by the security forces of patrolling in hard areas?
The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) said that he wanted Northern Ireland swamped. I think that that is perhaps the wrong way to put the matter. But there are areas where the security forces do not go with any frequency or

regularity. It is those areas in which the myth of IRA invincibility is strongest. If we are to remove that myth, the security forces of the Crown must be on the streets by day and by night regularly.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Or irregularly.

Mr. Ross: Or, as my right hon. Friend said, irregularly. It is unwise to be regular. But the security forces certainly should be there. They should be there often. If that is done, the IRA will then be faced with the choice to quit or to fight. Hon. Members know that the fanatics that we are up against have to be put out of business one way or the other.
The present policy and attitude to security in Northern Ireland has taken us as far as it is possible for that policy and attitude to take us. If any further advance is to be made, there must be a change of policy. As I have said, I believe that there are two options. I wonder which one the Government will take.
On the death penalty, there is a hope in the IRA of victory and of an amnesty. While one is alive, one can have that hope, but if one is hanged, one cannot possibly have it.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. William Craig: In speaking at the end of a most interesting debate, it is almost beyond the wit of anyone to add a new factor. I do not want to weary hon. Members by indulging in a speech of repetition. However, one matter which has not been stressed enough as yet is that a community which has suffered as much as Northern Ireland needs to be well led and to have decisive Government.
It is interesting to watch two conflicting viewpoints. There are those who say that we must not acknowledge any success on the part of the security forces, for a variety of reasons. Others, who have got into the habit of carping criticism, survive on the politics of protest and complaint. But then there are those who say the same thing for a different reason. They say it out of fear of retaliation—that if they proclaim too much about success against the IRA, the IRA, in its own interests, will have to prove those claims wrong with retaliatory outrages. I can


understand that fear, but I know that, if we are to win the war, the sooner the enemy knows that he is losing, the better for everyone concerned.
I shall not dwell on the technical aspects of security tonight. I should like to touch on one matter which is not sufficiently talked about—namely, robbing the IRA of its credibility and showing it and its supporters how futile the whole situation is. This is the only aspect where politics comes in. Let no one believe that any political settlement tomorrow would end IRA violence. It is motivated basically by skilled revolutionary Socialists who want to establish an all-Ireland Socialist republic. They would not be satisfied with any proposition for a mere unification of Ireland in a normal democratic sense. Even to talk about the unification of Ireland at this time is totally unrealistic and can only aid the violent campaign of the IRA.
I was appalled and shocked that the present Prime Minister of the Irish Republic should find it in himself to say that peace in Ireland could be obtained only by British withdrawal. It is easy for people to forget the realities. He seems to have forgotten the passive reaction to the conspiracy which centred around the 1973 political settlement and the so-called Council of Ireland. The swift and peaceful reaction to that proposition should not be forgotten when people use extravagant language and say that now is the time to talk about British withdrawal.
Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. Hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise that to be so and have on many occasions said that it will not change without the consent of the majority in Northern Ireland for such a change. That is fine as far as it goes. But when we look at it from the revolutionary's point of view, in reality there is in that statement no real commitment to maintain the Union in the sense that hon. Members talked about the integrity of the Union when debating the Scotland Bill. There is in their eyes a legitimate question mark over the future constitutional position of Northern Ireland.
There is very much a question mark not only in their eyes but in many other people's eyes about the future form of

government of the Province. Northern Ireland is not only failing to be defended as part of the Union, but it is being denied the quality of democracy that is inherent in being part of the United Kingdom. The sooner we start to deal with Northern Ireland within the standards that prevail throughout the United Kingdom, the sooner we shall convince the IRA of the futility of its campaign.
There are two realities involved in constitutional development, and the Government have the major responsibility for this. They have to set the stage for it. It is no use their saying that Ulster politicians should talk it out. Two things could happen. One either has a devolved Parliament and Government in Northern Ireland or one has something which is called integration. There is no half-way house between those two situations.
If the Government believe, as do most Northern Ireland politicians, that devolution is the best answer, let them approach the matter in a sane and realistic way. I was happy to see that the Secretary of State has put on record that it is no longer the Government's intention to resurrect the power-sharing policy. The Opposition Front Bench has put it more brutally by saying that power sharing is dead. That is a fact of life.
How do we make progress from there? I was a little disappointed with the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). He appreciates that this is a political problem, but can he expect to make progress when his party talks about the unification of Ireland rather than about the best way of government in Northern Ireland inside the United Kingdom? The possibility of unification of Ireland in the foreseeable future is so remote that it is not worth talking about. If there is to be devolution, it must be within the concept of majority rule. We cannot get away from that fundamental of democracy. Let us recognise that when talking about devolution.
Time is not on the side of the peace-loving people of Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland. Time is not on our side, politically, socially or economically. If the Government are not prepared to take a major role in reaching a decision on devolution, they must quickly decide that it is not on and they must start the process of what is described as integration.
Only with the removal of the uncertainty about Ulster's constitutional future will the terrorists be convinced that their campaign can never succeed. In the meantime, if we cannot tackle the major question we can get on with some of the things which show that a genuine attempt is being made.
Most people in Northern Ireland were happy to see the Speaker's Conference recommend an increase in their representation. Let us see Parliament get on with it. Let us see it show a little extra speed and haste in dealing with that matter. That would be a measure of intent and would help to destroy some of the illusions that motivate the IRA. The same could be done in local government. I am not suggesting that these steps are the answer to the problem, but they would be useful and should not be shirked. We must show that terrorism cannot win the day.
I pay tribute to the many in the Army and the police who have endured so much. I sympathise with the families of those who have paid the supreme sacrifice. I admire and rejoice in the quality of the Ulster people themselves. No one could have endured so much for so long in any finer way. When we have that quality on which to base our campaign and our policies, there can be no excuse for this period of eight years. It has gone on too long.
I say to the Government that we should show by actions rather than words that violence will not disturb our constitution and that violence will not rob our citizens of their normal democratic rights as citizens of the United Kingdom. Once that is proven, I am sure that there will be a worthwhile response.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson (New-bury): Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson (New-bury) rose—

Mr. Speaker: May I remind the hon. Member that the speeches in reply are to begin at 10 minutes past nine?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I shall do my best to complete my speech by them, Mr. Speaker.
If there is one thing that has come out of this debate it is that any euphoria that we may have felt in December of last year was premature. We must recognise that this year may be as violent as any we have seen. Yet I suspect that

if we were to reread the Secretary of State's speech of December we should notice that he warned us that there would be bouts of violence and that we should not expect the tide to turn to a point where we would see nothing but a recession of that violence and a return to a pacific society.
I have listened with great care to the speeches in this debate. I have been impressed by the restraint that has been shown. When we realise that the amount of killing that has taken place in Northern Ireland in the past eight years, if translated to a United Kingdom figure, would amount to 63,000 people, we get some idea of the scale of the slaughter that has taken place in the Six Counties. If I were a Member from the Six Counties, my blood would be boiling and I would be doing my best to try to keep myself in check.
Perhaps I can add my sympathy to the relations of those killed, particularly in the past three months. One is bound to think of the appalling tragedy of the La Mon restaurant. Last week, in St. Anne's Cathedral, the Chief Constable of the RUC, Sir Kenneth Newman, said, among other things, in an impressive talk, that the local community in Northern Ireland must not "demand that the police alone should solve the problems of the community".
In those words I think he was exhorting the community and pleading with the politicians to recognise that, if all is to be placed upon the effectiveness of the RUC without the help of the community as a whole, if the view is to be taken that "the police are there to protect us, let them get on with it", the police could not do that job. I found myself in agreement with some of the remarks made on the Labour Benches in this connection. It is a pity that we have not heard from the Secretary of State this afternoon, although we did hear from him in December, about the effectiveness of bringing both sides of the community into some sort of relationship with the police to help them in their task.
The promise originally held out when the UDR was set up was that it would be a community force. This aim seems not to have been realised, and yet little is said about that. Why is recruiting failing to draw from the minority as well as


the majority? It may be that the intimidation, the kneecapping and so on, is still so great that the minority will not put their trust in joining the UDR or seeking protection from the RUC. It seems that until some trust can be built up across the divide the Ulster Constabulary and its chief constable may well continue arguing that the police are being asked to do a job without the support which they ought to be able to expect. That that support can be forthcoming has been proved by the peace movement in which both sides of the community found common cause and acted together in the interests of the community.
I see the chief constable's words as a plea to the politicians to take an initiative, and I say to the Secretary of State that, although it does not follow that there is a political approach that will command general assent in Ulster, it is the remark able achievement of this Government to attempt to rule with the full support of neither community and the distrust of both. The right hon. Gentleman may say that that is a harsh judgment, but surely the effect of all the comings and goings, the gatherings together of political leaders, and the throwing up of hands at the end and saying "There you are, they have been to see me, I cannot get them to find common ground" is to create a community which docs not have any hope of looking forward to some form of devolved administration, as the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) said.
By keeping that community without an administration that it can trust and an administration which is its own we are keeping Northern Ireland in a very special category, and that cannot help to build up the necessary trust without which that community cannot be formed. So I do not believe that it is enough to say that the Secretary of State cannot find the agreement he looks for and therefore there is not very much more that he can do about it.
Secondly, I want to take up the Secretary of State's comments when his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) asked him about the statement by Mr. Lynch, the Prime Minister of the Republic, that only 2 per cent. of the violence in the North has any direct connection with the border. If

Mr. Lynch is wrong—he is the Prime Minister of the Republic and he, as the hon. Gentleman said, claims that that statement was officially supplied by the British authorities—what does the Secretary of State think is the true amount of violence coming across the border?
My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) gave us all cause to think about the new danger posed by the possession by the IRA of the M60 machine gun. As many hon. Members have said, those machine guns had to get to Northern Ireland from somewhere. The probability is that they crossed the border with their ammunition. If the Prime Minister of Eire is to be believed, when he saw the Prime Minister of this country in September—I read from Mr. Lynch's speech—
Mr. Callaghan expressed satisfaction at the degree of co-operation between the forces responsible for security under present arrangements. And we have had no complaints since which would indicate any change in the degree or effectiveness of this co-operation.
Has the situation changed since September? If so, have the British Government told the Government of the Republic that they are now unhappy about the border situation and that they are concened about the increasing flow of arms and ammunition and, conceivably, men from the South? Can the Secretary of State or the Minister of State give some assurance to the House that the border problem is being looked at with fresh eyes? Goodness knows, it has been raised many times in the Chamber in the past eight years, and we have been told that it is a 300-mile border, that there are so many crossings that the difficulty that would be imposed on the security forces in closing those crossings makes the border a subject better left to one side. We cannot go on in that way when we now know that the IRA is getting arms and ammunition with the capability of the M60. I therefore press the Minister to say something more about the surveillance which is currently taking place on the border.
The Secretary of State laid some stress on the extra-territorial legislation which he thought would have some effect on the pursuit of terrorists on either side of the border. That will not be enough to stop the flow of arms, of men and of stable door we shall in effect live in a ammunition. Until we have closed that


world where the terrorist can find a haven—whether or not it be a safe one—in which he can regroup from which he can return and from which he can commit crimes of the type we are debating tonight.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South): I was inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) that it was unlikely from the outset that this debate would produce anything radically new. But a debate is justified, and is often necessary, even when one may know in advance that there is nothing of that kind to be said, and after the recrudescence of terror in the past two months, and its culmination in the past two weeks, it would have been unthinkable that the House should not provide the means for the expression of the bewilderment, frustration and anger of those against whom that violence has been directed. I do not think that anyone need apologise that the debate has, indeed, contained all those ingredients.
But something new—new in kind—was not to be expected. Indeed, it would be disgraceful as well as improbable if, after years of terror in Northern Ireland, we were suddenly to discover that there were ready-made novel methods which had previously been not attempted or ignored. So we are not likely to find more than new emphasis upon old methods and old truths, and also to be confronted with one of the inherent frustrations of this subject, namely, that on any issue which is put to the Government in the whole security field it will be impossible for them, in the public interest, to be entirely candid and complete in their replies to the House. In a sense, therefore, we are fighting on two fronts in a debate in the House.
Having listened to the whole debate, I think that there have been three emphases which were new in intensity The first was upon armament, the second was upon deployment, and the third was upon the Republic as the base of terrorism.
On armament, the M60 and some of the new terror weapons have been frequently mentioned. But it would be a fallacy to suppose that the armament of the security forces has to match in kind the armament of the terrorists. It is no more

logical to say that, because the terrorists have the M60, the police and the Army ought therefore to use the M60 than it would be to say that, because they have bombs, the police ought therefore to have bombs, mortars and grenades.
What the security forces must have are the best weapons we can give them for the role which, as security forces, they play. That largely centres upon weapons—wise words on that subject fell from my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross)—and upon vehicles. There is, I believe, no doubt that there has in the past—perhaps up to the immediate past—been delay and a lack of urgency in meeting the hold ups in the supply of armaments to the security forces.
The Secretary of State led the House to believe—I am sure that this is the intention—that those delays will be overcome, even if unorthodox methods such as were constantly used between 1939 and 1945 are employed to ensure that there is no hold-up in the supply to the security forces of what they need.
I come next to deployment. The Secretary of State said that "there is no question of political restraint or inhibitions upon the operations of the security forces." I took his words down, and I believe them. Indeed, I cannot imagine that any Government would deliberately hamper themselves—for it is themselves—in the conduct of these operations. But the Secretary of State knows that he has a great obstacle here to overcome. That is the widespread belief in the Province that what he asserts, and what I believe to be true, is not true. Every day one meets this assertion backed up by apparent instances in which the security forces have not been permitted, for one reason or another, to be present or to be used where they were needed.
I do not believe that this is a matter of lack of total forces—merely to say that we need more forces in total is to miss the essence of the problem—but there have been examples enough given in the debate to entitle one to say that the forces which we have are still not being deployed where they are most needed. In one instance after another given in the debate, the deficiency of forces at the point of need was not the index of an overall deficiency in Northern Ireland but the evidence of an


inflexibility which still has to be overcome in providing what is needed—and it may not be very much— at the place and the time that it is needed.
I come, thirdly, to the Republic and its role in all this. The words which fell from the Secretary of State this afternoon were the most impressive which have ever been used from the Government Front Bench on this subject. He made no secret of the fact that the attack which is being made upon the people of Northern Ireland has its base in the Republic and that the security which is afforded south of the frontier to those who carry out these deeds—whether or not they are citizens of the United Kingdom or of the Republic—is a vital element in their success.
Having once stated that, the Government cannot, and I believe will not, just leave the matter there. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) was certainly not talking about sanctions or reprisals when he took the next step in logic from what the right hon. Gentleman had said. We ought to know by now, at this time of day, that sanctions and reprisals do not work and are often counter-productive. Nor would we expect the Secretary of State and the Government to disclose in this debate the methods by which the implications of what the Secretary of State said can best be brought home to the Republic and how, within what is possible, the disadvantages under which the security forces labour can be remedied.
I am not talking about extradition. I am not talking about European treaties. I am not talking about things which we as politicians know, whether we deplore it or not, are arguably beyond the reach of fellow politicians in the Republic. I am talking about methods which are available in the course of diplomacy, in the course of relations between Government and Government—and between two Governments who, to a large extent, have the same interest in overcoming the IRA, which is the enemy of both of them. I think that we are entitled to deduce from what the Secretary of State said that this is indeed going to happen and that that element, not least as a result of the last few weeks, will receive much more attention.
In the short run, the terrorist always has the initiative, because he controls the

place and the time of striking. It is useless to imagine that the urban guerrilla in any of his manifestations can be dealt with by eliminating all possible terrorists, by covering all possible routes, by being in all places at the same time. That is a counsel of madness. There is only one sure answer to terrorism, and that is certainly—or rather, two kinds of certainty, a subordinate certainty and a superior certainty.
The subordinate certainty is the certainty that, sooner or later—it may be very much later—the terrorist will be apprehended, tried, convicted and punished, as I believe that those responsible for the La Mon House outrage will—I do not know whether it will be this year or next year or, as in some recent cases, five years later—be apprehended, convicted and punished.
That brings up another theme which has run through this debate, that of sentencing. The Government should take away from this debate the conviction that the whole matter of sentencing in Northern Ireland must receive their urgent attention. Of course, the Minister of State will say, and we all accept, that sentencing is a matter for the courts. But it is also a matter of Government policy—not what happens in any particular case but in general. The management of sentences—remission of sentence, parole and all the rest—is a matter for Government, and a legitimate matter for Government.
At present, conviction that the sentence will be served, that a genuine, appropriate sentence will be served, is not present in the strength in which it should be. Nobody could do more than the Secretary of State has done in disavowing the possibility of an amnesty. Indeed, I almost shuddered when he used the word "never" in that connection this afternoon, knowing how dangerous a word that that is for the politician. Still, I do not think that anyone seriously supposes that either side of the House contemplates those who have been convicted and imprisoned for these offences over the years ever receiving an amnesty from any Government in this country or any Government in control as long as Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom.
Yet by those very last words I have indicated that the subordinate certainty—the certainty of not getting


away with it in the long run—is dependent upon there being a long run. It is dependent upon the certainty that in the end the terrorist cannot attain his objectives, that he is bound to lose sooner or later and that therefore all the risk, all the sacrifice, is in vain.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hills-borough (Mr. Flannery), whose contributions, I may assure him, are always welcomed by my hon. Friends and myself because of the involvement in Northern Ireland which is so clear in what he says, is right when he asserts that this certainty is a matter of politics. Where, with respect, he is mistaken is in supposing that it is in arriving at what is called a solution, a new constitution, a compromise, an outcome to the talks of the Secretary of State, that the political certainty lies.
That sort of solution is not of the slightest interest to the IRA. If the right hon. Gentleman were to call the parties together at Stormont at the end of this week and put his proposals in front of them, and if they were to shake hands and agree to everything on the paper, the IRA's campaign would go on. Indeed, I should be prepared to argue that it would go on with still more vigour.
So wherein does certainty lie? It lies in a very simple fact, a fact which depends on the commitment of this House, both sides of this House, to Northern Ireland's belonging to the United Kingdom so long as the majority of its people so desire. That is the basis; but what is built upon that is the determination of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland—and when I say "the majority" of the people of Northern Ireland I include much more than is implied by the usual meaning of the word "majority"—that terror will not budge them, will not get its way.
When the IRA looks back—if it has the eyes and the brains to do so—upon the past eight years, it will see that the Union is stronger now than it was when the troubles started, and that every apparent success that the IRA has had has only had the effect of reinforcing the Union.
It has been said in the debate—this is the last thing I want to say, but the hardest thing I have to say—by at least one Member, and one hears it in Northern Ireland, that there is a limit to what the people of Northern Ireland can

take. But the fact is—and the IRA had better understand it—that there is no limit to what the people of Northern Ireland in order to save what they hold to be dearer than life itself will not endure if they have to. That this should be understood, is the best guarantee that they will have to endure it for the shortest possible time.
It is no use making appeals to the IRA and explaining that it is wicked to kill women and children. The IRA knows what it is doing. It is the very essence of the terrorist to do that sort of thing and to do it deliberately. That is not the message needed by the IRA. What the IRA has to be told is that it will get nowhere, that, however long it goes on, however frequently it repeats these atrocities, at the end it will be further from its professed objectives than when it started. That is the only message that is worth sending to the IRA.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davisou: Northern Ireland Members have expressed the horror felt in their constituencies and felt by the whole House at this new dire phase of the Provisional IRA terrorism, which some thought had died away.
The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) is one of those who never made that mistake. I remember sitting on this Bench before the evenings drew in and listening to him warn the House of a long, hard winter ahead. This evening he did not say "I told you so", but he spoke of ways in which he thought that the security forces could seize the initiative. So did my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave). Both made important suggestions to this end, as did the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross), who also asked some pertinent questions.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) did not need to tell Members on this side of the House who have some experience of counter-insurgency of the danger of over-reaction to terrorist outrage. But there is also the danger of inertia. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central himself spoke of drift. When he says or gives the impression that he does not want


intensified military activity, he appears to be at variance with the Secretary of State.

Mr. McNamara: My comment upon drift was in terms of a comment upon political attitudes—drift towards integration. It was not concerned with drift in the sense that my right hon. Friend was pursuing a vigorous policy to root out terrorism wherever it came from. I was commending him on the fact that he did not over-react to the situation and thereby worsen it.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, but he did say that intensified military activity was not needed in this situation. I hope that he will take that up with Ministers.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—and how I personally welcome his strong words about the sanctity of the Union—drew attention both to delays in the supply of what is needed for the security forces, or some of the items needed by the security forces, and to deficiencies in the deployment of the troops. I hope that we shall get assurances on both these matters from the Minister of State when he replies.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) spoke, as did other hon. Gentlemen, about the Ulster Defence Regiment. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) asserted that there is banned territory—a new term for "no-go area"—for the Ulster Defence Regiment. I have heard this said. Is it true? I hope that we shall hear something from the Minister of State.
The deplorable strike with which the hon. Member for Antrim, North was connected did something for law and order. It proved that the UDS is indeed a non-sectarian and dependable force. It was called out, it stood to arms and it did its duty, which is mortifying for IRA propagandists, whose purpose is to decry and besmirch all that is loyal and true as biased and bigoted.
I share the disappointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) that there is not a larger proportion of Roman Catholics today

serving in the UDI. The terrorists have used murder and threats with the object of terrifying Catholics into seeking discharge, and with some success. For family reasons, a number of Catholics have felt bound to leave. They have handed in their arms sorrowfully, and to the regret of their Protestant comrades. I can testify to this from my own tours and visits to UDR battalions.
The IRA ploy is, quite simply, not merely to drive good soldiers out of the regiment but, having done so, to say "There you have it, a sectarian force, no Catholics, all Protestants, the storm-troopers of Protestant ascendancy—the B Specials come again." But the psychological warfare, in which the terrorists are skilled, has not succeeded in this case.
Regular Army officers are not usually averse from criticising irregular corps, but the Regular Army today trusts and respects the UDR. I hope that if there are still any deficiencies in radio or other equipment, these will become grievances of the past. I also trust that the full-time element is growing fast. Yes, the Catholic proportion is regrettably small. All who join this regiment are brave men and brave women, but the Catholics who enlist need a double dose of courage. They receive scant encouragement from those who claim to speak for them in Church and State. Let anyone who alleges that the UDR is sectarian in its composition help to enlist more Roman Catholics.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West has assailed the Provisionals furiously in the debate, and I honour him for that, but if he is dissatisfied, as I am, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham is dissatisfied, with the strength of the Roman Catholics in the regiment, let him for goodness sake help to recruit more men and women of that persuasion. I should be glad to share a recruiting-platform with the hon. Gentleman and other minority leaders, and I dare say that my hon. Friend the Member for Becken ham would join us in an ecumenical spirit.
Will the Minister of State please address himself to the misgivings to which the hon. Member for Antrim, North gave voice about the surveillance of cross-border traffic?
There has been discussion of the new and deadly weapons that the IRA now


has. The IRA, having such weapons, is in a better position to hit targets within Northern Ireland from deep in the territory of the Republic. The full co-operation of the security forces of the Republic with those of the United Kingdom has become the more necessary. As the right hon. Member for Down, South and others have observed, the two sovereign States have a common terrorist enemy. Mr. Lynch remarked at the Fianna Fail Ard Fheis on 18th February:
We have not escaped. The burden for this small island is immense.
Indeed, we have not escaped. The burden is immense. Tourism is deterred. Investors are deterred by terrorism.
The all-Ireland aim of the IRA is to engulf the entire island in revolution and destruction. It is true that the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic have a common interest in the destruction of a common foe. It makes no sense that the Irish Republic should allow its soil to be used for armed attack across the international frontier contrary to international law and for the arming, training and recuperation of a force bent on the destruction of its own authority and constitution. I thought that the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), made that point to perfection.
So the troubles have lasted eight to nine years. As the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) said, they have lasted far too long. However, we must be prepared to go on. As the right hon. Member for Down, South said, it is the lingering hope that perhaps we might weaken that enables the terrorists to continue.
We are entitled to ask, as the hon. Members for Belfast, North and Belfast, South said, why Dublin has so far declined to join its partners in the acceptance of the European convention on terrorism. We are entitled to ask why there is still no efficacious substitute for extradition, to which there are constitutional obstacles. So far as I know, the Criminal Jurisdiction Act of this Parliament and the corresponding Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act of the Irish Parliament have not brought one terrorist to reckoning. Of course, that legislation is not retrospective. I shall be glad to know whether there is any prospect of its having any effect upon the reduction of terrorism.
The Taoiseach, in the speech to which I have referred, said:
I want to report that we as a Government will employ the full resources of security and of the law available to us in pursuing and bringing to justice those who engage in violence and embark on a course of savagery like blowing innocent children to bits on their way to school.
Mr. Lynch went on roundly to condemn the atrocities committed near Cumber. We are glad of these words. However, one must say—I hope that the Secretary of State and the Foreign Office will say it—that, when the Irish Prime Minister speaks of
the law available to us",
the law still seems wholly insufficient for the discharge of the Republic's international obligations to its neighbour.
At least we might be spared pronouncements by politicians in the Republic that only encourage the Provisional IRA to persevere, as the Secretary of State said in his opening speech, by resurrecting the spectre of British withdrawal and impeding the constructive political discussion in the Province that the hon. Member for Hillsborough wishes to see.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North spoke of the dreams of Sinn Fein and the IRA. Their dream of Ireland is very different from that of most Irish politicians. They share, unfortunately, with a number of Irish politicians the aim of ousting British troops and British sovereignty.
The IRA will not have been discouraged by recent canvassing on both sides of the border of the idea of a federal Ireland. There is nothing new in that. It is not fresh bait to catch Northern Unionists. As the hon. Member for Antrim, North well knows, the idea was once worked on, for example, by Mr. Desmond Boal. It is founded on a false premise.
The argument seems to me to go like this: many Northern Protestants regard the Parliament in Dublin as a Catholic Parliament for a Catholic people, and they fear that within a unitary Irish State they would be compelled to accept social legislation and restrictions on private conduct which they would find irksome or repugnant. But, if such matters were the concern of a new Stormont Assembly connected not with London but with Dublin, they would cheerfully


bid the Brits goodbye, haul down the Union flag and run up the Tricolour. In other words, there would be no need of British rule if Rome rule could be prevented.
That premise is false. Ulster loyalty is not a negative sentiment of that kind. Allegiance to the Crown and fidelity to the Union run deep in most Protestants in the North, and in more Catholics than is often admitted. It derives in part from the distinct personality of Ulster expressed politically in six of the nine counties of the historic Province now within Northern Ireland. It descends, too, from a proud history. In the Republic, politicians and parties may feel it necessary to prove their Republican virility and show themselves more nationalist than thou, but demands for a British intent to quit, like ill-judged hints of amnesty, are the very stuff of IRA propaganda.
There has been quotation in this debate of The Times leading article. The Times says:
There is not the faintest prospect of a transformation of opposed allegiances so long as violent subversion ravages the land.
We heard again from the hon. Member for Belfast, West. Sometimes he is here, and sometimes he is not. He is not present at the moment, but he used again the cliche that no military solution will suffice. It is equally true that there can be no lasting political solution without the re-establishment by the security forces of peace and order, and that is why we on this side of the House welcome the presence at this debate of the Secretary of State for Defence and his Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army. They will have heard the powerful words of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham about the hardships of those who serve in Northern Ireland and who are better praised than paid.
The Times leader which I have quoted is entitled "Dublin Loses Patience". None of us in these islands should lose patience. We must uphold the Union. We must work together. We have a common travel area in these islands. We have virtually common citizenship, albeit not reciprocal. Surely what we need is a common security area so that in these islands the terrorist may find no

harbour, no hiding place, no breathing space, to use the vivid phrase of the hon. Member for Antrim, North. The honour and interests of all Irishmen require it.

9.43 p.m.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): From the speeches that we have heard today, and from the debate, being held as it is after the massacre at the La Mon House, and bearing in mind the other deeds that have been perpetrated against the security forces in which innocent civilians have been involved, as they are bound to be when bombs, bullets and fire bombs are being used, it is evident that there is great concern about the problems of Northern Ireland.
It is only natural that some of the emotions and frustrations of people have shown in today's debate. At one time I thought that the debate was getting a little out of hand, but with its good sense, the House resumed its normal course of a serious consideration of the issues involved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) forcefully reminded us that the politics and economics of Northern Ireland are part and parcel of the security set-up. There have been some telling speeches today. The Secretary of State particularly went through all aspects of security and told the House what was happening about security policy and the future as he sees it. I should like to go through the points that have been made in the debate and to try to answer as many as I can.
One thing that puzzled me at the outset—this was mentioned by both the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley)—was the talk about low intensity operations and a low profile. I hope no one is suggesting that the security forces have been holding back or taking it easy. I can assure the House that before, during and since the firemen's stoppage the police and soldiers have been fully occupied in both offensive and preventative operations. I can assure the House that but for these efforts the terrorists would have had much more scope than they have had.
I am also glad that just about every hon. Member accepted the fact that the answers do not lie in large injections of


additional regular troops. The hon. Member for Antrim, North misunderstood what my right hon. Friend said about the extra resident battalion. The hon. Gentleman asked what would happen until it arrived in September. The answer is that the new resident battalion will replace one of the four-month units. There is no question of any gap between now and September.
My right hon. Friend was making the point that, unit for unit, there are certain operational advantages in a residential unit. All of us who have been in Northern Ireland for any length of time know the limitations of the four-month enrolment of troops. But a regiment which is there for 18 months gains a lot of knowhow on the ground and can keep up its effort without any interruption. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that point.

Mr. Kilfedder: The point the people of Northern Ireland make—as did some of the people I saw in hospital this morning—was that if the troops in Northern Ireland swamped those areas in which the terrorists emerge to perpetrate these atrocities, those atrocities would not occur, certainly not with such frequency. I hope that the Minister will bear that point in mind.

Mr. Concannon: One can argue that that would happen if one swamped an area with troops. But I would merely say that what matters is not the quantity but the quality of troops. That is what we must concentrate upon, and that is what we have been concentrating upon.
Mention was also made of the special role of the troops in Northern Ireland. But, to use a phrase contained in several speeches, in certain areas on the political front we cannot force other Governments to do certain things. I believe that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) recognised that.
In certain respects we have this problem with regard to the law in the South. One has only to take the existing extradition by warrant procedure which has not been effective in cases of terrorist offences. Irish law provides immunity from extradition for any offender who can demonstrate that his crime was a "political offence" or "connected with a political offence". During the current campaign there have been more than

20 notable cases of appeals against extradition being allowed on political grounds. The Irish extradition provisions as they relate to terrorist offences have never been helpful to us, but the RUC pursues fugitive terrorists by way of the extradition by warrant process. It is always possible that the Irish courts will grant extradition. There is no problem with non-terrorist criminals. Four of them were extradited in 1976 and three in 1977.
We still hope that the Irish Government will sign and ratify the European convention on the suppression of terrorism, but in the absence of an effective system of extraditing terrorists from the Republic our mutual criminal jurisdiction legislation is the next best thing, though it applies only to offences committed after 1st June 1976 when it came into force.

Mr. McNamara: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the backing of warrants, pursued by the Irish Government, brings people before the courts, that the independent judiciary decides whether a man has committed a political offence and that it is not a lack of will on the part of the Irish Government?

Mr. Concannon: It is the law of the South which allows this and the courts adjudicate on that law. Prosecution under legislation is a matter for the legal authorities in whose jurisdiction the suspect is located. The Government are satisfied that the RUC and the Gardai will co operate to make full use of it if suitable cases emerge.
Given the nature of the border, and everyone understands the problems involved, the permanent vehicle checkpoints can be and have been passed by those who have reason to fear them. The security forces have applied a more flexible policy to the checking of vehicles at the permanent checkpoints and are concentrating more on snap checks all along the border.
The references by Mr. Jack Lynch to only 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. of incidents in Northern Ireland originating from the Republic are misleading. Information is passed to the South whenever there is clear and direct evidence that an incident was cross-border—this is usually when gunmen are seen crossing the border or when detonator wires are left lying across the border. Such incidents may represent only a small proportion of the


total violence in Northern Ireland, but they are only a small percentage of the incidents where all the indications are that there was a cross-border element, and we have made clear to the Irish Government that we do not agree with their figure of 2 per cent.
I can assure the House that co operation between the RUC and the Gardai continues to develop in a number of operational areas. Joint action continues to hinder the movement of arms and money into the hands of terrorists. There will always be room for improvement and we shall continue to seek closer co-operation between the forces on both sides of the border.
The hon. Member for Abingdon and others asked about proscription of the Provisional Sinn Fein. It was proscribed from May 1973 until July 1974 under Section 19 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, but the Government have been concerned recently to observe the principle that people should be penalised for the crimes that they commit and not for the motives behind them.
It is right that Provisional Sinn Fein should be able to reflect the shade of political opinion which it reflects at present, but that is not to suggest that if a direct connection between the Provisional IRA and Provisional Sinn Fein is established action should be inhibited. There are limits to the freedom of speech and writing, and when individual members of Provisional Sinn Fein also belong to illegal organisations such as Provisional IRA they should be proceeded against. In view of what has been said in the debate, I can assure hon. Members that we shall keep the situation under review.
The hon. Member for Abingdon also asked about the recent Army helicopter crash and mentioned the Provisional IRA's claim that it had shot down the helicopter with an M60. Inquiries into the incident are continuing, but there is certainly no evidence to confirm that the crash was caused by fire from an M60 or any other firearm.
That brings me to a point that was touched upon by many hon. Members. The hon. Member for Abingdon suggested that the M60 machine gun has revolutionised the situation in Northern Ireland. Certainly my right hon. Friend and I

take this new threat extremely seriously, as we have made clear. But I suggest that it is a mistake to believe that any weapon makes a decisive difference to the terrorist's position, whether it be the RPG7 rocket, the M60, or whatever. What counts most in the end is not the fire power which the terrorists can bring to bear, or even the viciousness with which they are prepared to use it, but the weight of opinion, condemnation and rejection which is brought to bear on the terrorists. That is still the crucial factor, as my right hon. Friend pointed out when he quoted the wise words of the chief constable.
It cannot be said too often that the effectiveness of the terrorists is largely governed by the attitude of the whole community. The security forces are aware of the threat posed by this weapon in the hands of the terrorists. Its use has been identified on two occasions in Belfast and on two occasions in Londonderry. In one of the attacks in Belfast a soldier was shot dead. Searches have already resulted in the discovery of three belts of ammunition, and searching continues to locate the weapon or weapons. As a result of the demonstration in Londonderry on 29th January, a man has been charged with the possession of the weapon.
The question of police arms and equipment cropped up in a few speeches. My right hon. Friend spoke of the usefulness of the Hotspur reinforced Land Rovers and made clear that we are pressing on with a further addition to the fleet. He also referred to the M1 carbines in service with the RUC. I would only add that the selection of police equipment is a matter for the police. It is for the chief constable to assess the needs of the force. He is advised by a working party on which the Police Federation is represented. These were the ways in which the police decided that the M1 carbine was the right weapon for them. We should perhaps hesitate before claiming that our judgment is possibly better than theirs.

Mr. Carson: Is the Minister of State aware that the Police Federation has made repeated representations to the police authority? It seems that the message is coming through from the chief constable and the Police Federation to the police authority. Is he aware that, whenever this happens, it promises that, when matters return to normal, these


vehicles and weapons, which are needed now, will be provided?

Mr. Concannon: The vehicle fleet, which forms an essential part of the RUC operations against the terrorist, continues to grow at the rate of 100 a year. The eventual target of 1,400 of all types of vehicles should be reached by the end of 1979. Twenty-eight Land Rovers have been or are in the process of being equipped with special steel protection. Ninety more are due to be similarly kitted out, 50 by local firms in Northern Ireland.
Reviews are regularly undertaken to ensure that the RUC is equipped with the weapons best suited to its needs. The delivery of the 1,000 M1 carbines is now completed. The weapon is being issued as members of the force are trained in its use.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Northern Ireland Office is responsible for responding to the wishes of the chief constable or whether the responsibility is firmly in the hands of the police authority? I find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson). The police authority tells us that it cannot get the stuff and blames the Minister. Then, when we go to the Government, they say that that is a matter for the police authority. We need to know who is responsible.

Mr. Concannon: The decision on the kinds of weapons and vehicles required is for the police and the police authority. Once they have decided, they cannot, of course, be manufactured overnight. There has been a problem in getting them to the Province. Once the decision has been taken, it will be up to us to ensure that the various licensing and other procedures that have to be gone through in the Northern Ireland Office are carried out expeditiously. The decision on policy and on what weapons are required is for the police and the police authority combined.
There has been talk about limitation on UDR employment or deployment. It is fair to stress—and I stress again—that the UDR is part of the British Army. The UDR plays an extremely important role in security—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Motion relating to the Firearms (Variation of Fees) Order (Northern Ireland) 1977 may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or for one and a half hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later. —[Mr Tinn.]

NORTHERN IRELAND (APPROPRIATION)

10.0 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James A. Dunn): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.
This order is being made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 and is the first this year of the annual cycle of orders which make available the funds required for the services of the Northern Ireland Departments.
The order serves to appropriate not only the published Spring and Further Spring Supplementary Estimates for 1977–78 but the sums required on account of 1978–79. These latter will keep Northern Ireland Departments in funds until after the 1978–79 Main Estimates are published, when Parliament will be asked to approve appropriation of the balance of the funds required.
I wish to deal first with the Spring and Further Spring Supplementary Estimates, by which total additional provision of £64·2 million is sought. This sum, together with the Main Estimates provision of £1,144·2 million approved by the House in July and Autumn Supplementary Estimates provision of £109·6 million approved in December, brings the total sought for 1977–78 to £1,318 million. This sum is within both the public expenditure allocations and the cash limits for Northern Ireland Departments. Total provision for 1976–77 amounted to £1,147·7 million.
The services for which these extra funds are required are set out in part 1 of the schedule to the order. More detailed information may be found in the two Supplementary Estimates volumes, copies of which are available in the Library. I wish, however, to draw attention to some of the outstanding items in the order.
A further £7 million is sought in view of the decision to cancel the three months' deferment on payment of capital grants to industry which was announced in July

1976 and to provide for an increase in the number of claims for grant. An additional provision of £10·6 million is sought for the roads service to cover price increases and £7·3 million—to fund the extension of the resurfacing programme for the main road network and minor road improvements. This provision should go some way towards increasing employment in the construction industry. An additional £5·5 million is required for the continuation of payments under the meat industry employment schemes. An additional provision of £12 million for schools and higher education is due mainly to increased costs of supplies and services and an increase in the value of awards. The £14·6 million required for health and personal social services takes account of increased costs, while the special payment of £10 to pensioners requires the allocation of a further £3·4 million.
Major savings offsetting these increases include £2 million in the Industrial Support and Regeneration Vote, mainly due to a reduction in claims for loans for industrial modernisation and reorganisation; £2·7 million in the housing services, where less than anticipated has been paid to housing associations; and £3·5 million in various areas of higher education.
I turn now to the sums required on account of 1978–79. These have been calculated on the same basis as that used for United Kingdom Departments—that is to say, they represent 45 per cent. of the total estimates for the current financial year, except where the anticipated expenditure for 1978–79 differs substantially. The total sum sought on account is £579·7 million. Details are provided in part HI of the schedule to the order.
Those are the main features of the order to which I wish to draw attention. I commend the order to the House. Within the limits imposed upon us, I shall, of course, attempt to answer any questions which hon. Members may raise in the debate, and if for any reason I am unable to do so I shall note the point and write to the hon. Member concerned.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: We agree with this order, but I must continue my references to education which I raised under Class VIII in the schedule to the order in the last debate on 8th


December and about which the Undersecretary wrote to me on 11th January. In that debate, I called upon the Government to allay some of the controversy which they had arcused in Northern Ireland through their plans to reorganise secondary education. In particular, the Under-Secretary will remember that I asked for a full-scale debate. He had suggested this during the summer of last year.
The controversy has not been brought to an end by a display of tact and moderation by the Government. On the contrary, the storm which they unleashed seems to have continued unabated. The Minister referred to the official statement of 15th June last year, which made it clear that the Government accepted the view that
change should take place through evolution, not revolution; through a development growing out of the existing educational system, not its destruction; through an advancement from the present schools, not their retardation.
According to my sources, there still remains the conviction that the Government are prepared to override all opposition and impose a unified system throughout Northern Ireland.
We must be clear what is the situation, because it was not made clear in the debate on 8th December. The two groups that are most intimately concerned about the Government's policy are the teachers and the parents of children at the highly successful grammar schools which would have prospered. The teaching profession has continued to voice its fears and apprehensions. In the last few months the parents have joined in, and an Ulster parents' union has been formed which has collected much support throughout Northern Ireland. There can be no doubt about its opposition to the institution of the single comprehensive system as the Government are carrying it out.
It was also made clear on 15th June—this has got over to the people who communicate with me—that the Government have no one to blame but themselves for these difficulties. They appear to believe that consultation is not important. Is it not the case that the Government have at no time discussed the substance of their proposals with representatives of the governing bodies of the voluntary grammar schools?
I should like an answer so that we can be satisfied that proper consultation is taking place. If that body of opinion has been ignored, which is what is felt, that is serious. At no time has it been given an opportunity of hearing and commenting on the Government's policy under which grammar schools may well have their sixth forms taken from them.
In that connection, the hon. Gentleman wrote to me on 11th January as a result of my queries, saying:
On the question of sixth-form colleges, I must also refer you to what was said in the statement of 15th June, i.e. that the Government has not determined on a single system of comprehensive schooling for the whole of Northern Ireland but on local planning by local people for local circumstances.
I am not sure whether that policy is being carried out. The hon. Gentleman must give us a pretty firm answer to this today.
The new parents' union to which I have referred seems to have felt that it has been treated in the same way as the governing bodies. According to a local newspaper report of 3rd February, the union's secretary said:
We were promised consultations by Lord Melchett but this has not happened. Letters to the area boards have been ignored.
He went on to express anxiety that his organisation had been made the victim of a
bureaucratic ruse to allay fears while comprehensive plans were being quietly prepared in the background.
It seems that the parents' union now feels that it has no alternative other than to prepare a detailed policy document of its own in the hope that the noble Lord will at least read the views which he has refused to discuss directly.
The people of Northern Ireland are not necessarily opposed to comprehensive education as such. A number of interesting experiments along comprehensive lines have recently been carried out. What is necessary is to know whether the Government are carrying out their stated policy of consultation. At the moment, I am not satisfied that they are. I should like to hear a little more from the Minister about this. He will know that the Government have provoked the united opposition of Catholic, Protestant and non-denominational grammar schools to their education policy. The co-operation of these schools is absolutely essential if


any new scheme is to succeed in Northern Ireland.
It is difficult to believe that the Government would find it easy to undo the damage which has now been done. If they do not act quickly to disarm their critics, they will set the seal on the failure of these plans. They cannot impose reorganisation of education on a community which is hostile to it.
I asked about the cost of reorganisation on the last occasion we debated the subject. I did not receive a very distinct answer. The issue has been dealt with in the most vague terms so far. In the statement of 15th June 1977—the statement that I complained about, which was made outside Parliament and subsequently in the Lords—Lord Melchett confessed that the original estimate of costs, put at £3¼ million, was open to criticism, which the Government accepted. We have not had a new overall figure since then as far as I know. Nor has it been said that the Government would publish clear accounts as reorganisation proceeded.
On a subject on which feeling runs high, the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to know the cost of the schemes about which so many feel so strongly. We are led to believe that it will be possible to commence a reorganisation of education within the limits of existing public expenditure survey figures. In view of the steep rise in planned expenditure on education in Northern Ireland, announced in the last White Paper on Government expenditure for the period 1978–79 to 1981–82, I hope that we shall hear more of this at the end of debate.
I turn briefly to Class I and the item dealing with agriculture. A recent report dated 23rd February by the Northern Ireland Economic Council on Agriculture interested me because it identified problems of common concern. It deserves careful study since it is an important document affecting the Northern Ireland economy, in particular agriculture. Its recommendations for the improvement of agriculture should be considered at length, perhaps on another occasion. The report establishes the overwhelming importance of removing the grave uncertainties afflicting the industry over recent years so as to produce increased investment, which in turn will

lead to more jobs. It commends, for instance, the meat industry employment scheme.
I do not wish to take the matter further except to ask what the Government's reaction is to that report and its recommendations. It seems to be the firm belief that, with appropriate Government action, agriculture in Northern Ireland could play a highly significant part in helping to restore the economy of the Province to a prosperous condition.
On 8th December last—this is reported at column 1767—I referred to the Quigley Report and to Northern Ireland's need for new jobs. The Under-Secretary will recollect that the figure in that report was 60,000 new jobs. When the hon. Gentleman wrote to me on 11th January—I thank him for a very full letter, even if I have criticised some of the education references in it—he said that the most recent recalculation of the figure of 60,000 should be 54,400 new jobs by 1981, to allow for 5 per cent, unemployment in the Province, apparently. The hon. Gentleman also gave information about the youth opportunities programme, which, he said, would be fully operational by September 1978.
I expect that the Under-Secretary has read the article in today's Financial Times entitled "Improving Ulster's Industrial Base". It refers in particular to the Northern Ireland Development Agency. On the point about jobs, it says that, in spite of notable successes, the Agency is hard put to pinpoint the number of jobs that have resulted from the £13 million so far channelled into Northern Ireland industry. How is the job creation programme proceeding? We should like information on those three points.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: I want to pose only three questions to the Minister. I recognise that we have had a long and particularly gruelling debate on security, and it may be the intention of hon. Members not to prolong this debate unduly.
I understand that the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) will probably go into the question in more detail than I propose to do now, but on the question of appropriations under Class II mention is made of certain sums to be


made available for employment services for the disabled. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will recognise that this is a matter which has been brought to the Government's attention on numerous occasions, and it is a matter which unites all sections of the community and political representatives in Northern Ireland. There is great dissatisfaction amongst all the political representatives about the extent of the services which are made available to the disabled in Northern Ireland.
I have had sent to me through the post in recent weeks a booklet entitled "Developing Employment and Training Services for Disabled People" issued by the Manpower Services Commission. I am not yet too sure whether the services detailed in the booklet apply to people in Northern Ireland. The Minister should make it clear whether they do. No doubt this matter can be debated at greater length at a more appropriate time.
I have another question arising under Class IV in relation to the Department of the Environment and its "associated services including lighting". I have for a number of years asked who is responsible for the lighting or roads or streets in Northern Ireland, particularly in the city of Belfast, part of which I represent. Is it the Secretary of State for the Environment, or is it the Army? Because of inadequate lighting, many of my constituents are completely unable to negotiate the highways and byways of the estates in which they live. I have made representations time and again to the Department of the Environment to try to have lights turned on, and I am told that this is a matter for the security forces. I should be the last to say that the security forces should not take adequate means of protection, but I sometimes feel that they overdo it, with the consequence that many old people have suffered injury because of inadequate lighting.
Next, under Class V, I hope that there will be a complete unanimity in the debate which is to take place in Committee on Thursday this week about the proposed changes in the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I believe that unanimity will be found, and perhaps now is not the time to go into that in more detail.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In this much-reduced debate, my hon. Friends will be dealing with a number

of substantive questions. I shall refer only to the more strictly financial aspects of the order.
On several previous occasions, until he must have got tired of it, I have raised with the United-Secretary of State the working of the annual financial cycle of our debates. This is the first of our three annual occasions for considering appropriation for Northern Ireland. I have suggested that the timetable is unfortunately so arranged that we do not have the latest information available on the occasion of each of our three debates. The Minister took this very seriously, as he always does, but came to the conclusion, in his reply to me of 11th January, that
The only remaining variable which could be changed is the timing of the Public Accounts Committee's meetings.
I have success to report, for which we are indebted to the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. I quote from his letter of 17th January.
With goodwill all round (which is not in short supply) and with a modicum of luck (which may or may not be) I think I can say that the PAC's report on Northern Ireland affairs could be available by the end of June or early July. I will certainly do my best to see that it is.
Since the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee has been so helpful, I hope that the Government will on their side be able to time the summer appropriation debate so that we are able to benefit from what is reported to us by the Public Accounts Committee.
I quite accept, of course, what the right hon. Member for Taunton said further in his letter—that he could not enter into an "inviolable commitment" to that effect—but my hon. Friends and I would be strongly in agreement with the concluding sentence of his letter
I am strongly of the opinion that Northern Ireland should be treated, especially in accounting and audit matters, completely on all fours with the rest of the United Kingdom.
Having reported that advance, I wish to refer to only three or four financial matters which are raised prominently by the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on last year's expenditure, which has come to hand since our last appropriation debate in December.
First, under Class II, Vote 1, industrial support and regeneration, one cannot but


remark with satisfaction upon the incredible turn-round in the situation of Harland and Wolff. It is very satisfactory to note the contrast between the affairs of that undertaking now and three years ago. One is bound to reflect—I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) is not here, for he laid special stress upon this—that it was a useful and salutary exercise to provide a final sum, with a terminal date and a maximum amount, against which it would be necessary to work. At any rate the result has been successful, and so far little more than half, up to the end of the last financial year, had been drawn against the total sum provided.
Rather in contrast with the experience at Harland and Wolff, some of the other ventures under Class II(1) continue to give anxiety. The Minister will remember that I raised this matter with him in the previous debate. He said in his letter:
A high risk level has to be accepted in order to provide a prospect of employment, particularly in areas where unemployment is very high and investment difficult to secure.
That is a two-edged statement, because it is where unemployment is very high and investment difficult to secure that it is important to avoid incurring risks so high that they are almost certain to rebound both upon employment and upon future investment. It is noteworthy that the Minister said in his next sentence:
Strathearn Audio and Ulster Crystal are amongst the higher risk ventures.
Certainly nothing has transpired in the last three months to alter that.
I move to Class V, housing services, where the Comptroller and Auditor-General reports in a very interesting manner upon provision of grants for repairs. I think that his conclusion should be taken into account by the Department in future policy. He analysed the grants which had actually been made and found a strange contrast between the absurdly low level of some of the small grants and the restrictive effect of the upper limit of the £600 valuation.
I think that this indicates that there is need for improvement at both ends of the scale. It is really waste of time and waste of administrative effort if we are still working on grants as low as, in some cases, £1 and in a number of cases in two figures only.
On the other hand, with the increase in

costs, clearly the £600 valuation level is becoming increasingly out of date. Therefore, it is not too soon for the Government to review the conditions of the repairs grant scheme. It has already been in statutory force now for 15 or 16 months. Neither inflation nor the rise in building costs has slowed down, and the Government should be looking at the grant frm the point of view of efficiency and from the point of view of current costs.
Finally, I come to Class VIII, Vote 2, higher education, on which there are two matters to which attention should be drawn and on which the Comptroller and Auditor-General's account should be taken very seriously. The first was the confusion which arose over the plans for the provision of undergraduate medical training at the City Hospital or on the Central Hospital site. Quite clearly, delay and additional expenditure have been incurred because the University Grants Committee did not learn soon enough of the intentions and was not brought into consultation at a sufficiently early stage. The Government should put a marker for future hospital development and educational development against the lesson to be learned from the story of the undergraduate medical teaching provision at the City and Central Hospitals.
Finally, there is the emergent over-provision at the new University of Ulster. Clearly, something will soon have to be done here if we are to avoid foreseen and foreseeable waste.
I shall quote only one remarkable sentence from the Comptroller and Auditor-General's report:
The review"—
it is a review which is already some three years old—
also showed that with 1,683 students there were…general teaching accommodation for 2,300, academic facilities for 2,475, library facilities for 2,875, administration and maintenance accommodation to handle 5,000, health facilities for 6,800 and outdoor sports grounds for 8,000.
We should know whether anything has yet been done to bring the plans for provision at the new University of Ulster more into accord with the realities of the rate of development which that university is likely actually to experience, for it is no longer good enough to refer to
the wholly unexpected decline in growth of student demand ".


It is now a fact of which, if we are not to be guilty of the waste of public funds, account should be taken. I hope that the Minister will be able at any rate to intimate that a firm grasp is being taken upon the development plans at the new University of Ulster.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. Peter Milk: I am grateful for this opportunity of saying a few words about agriculture and food production in Northern Ireland, under Class I. I do not think I need apologise to hon. Members from Northern Ireland for speaking in one of their debates, for I am sure that they know that I am a friend of Northern Ireland. I still have many friends over there, particularly in agriculture and the food processing industry. Agriculture is crucial to Northern Ireland, more so than to most other areas of the United Kingdom—and that is saying something when it comes from a Member from the South-West of England.
The small family farm reaches its best in Northern Ireland. On average, I have never seen better small farms and family farms than I have seen in Northern Ireland. In a sense, the way people farm over there on that small acreage is an object lesson of what can be done. Many other remoter areas within the European Economic Community could well look to Northern Ireland and its small farms and learn the lessons. I want the situation to continue, because I believe that the small farms in Northern Ireland and, indeed, the whole agricultural scene can and do play a role in the stability of Northern Ireland. Heaven help the Province if agriculture failed it and things went wrong.
The Government need to do much more in this area. This country's entry into the Community put a strain on remoter areas. It certainly put a strain on Northern Ireland. We and the Government must recognise that Northern Ireland has a remoteness problem. It is not easy for its imports, which are more costly than in other areas. It is not easy to export its final products, because of the extra cost of exporting. This distance problem should be taken into account in prices and further aid to the Province. In a sense, it is much cheaper in the long run to do this than to have problems mount in such a Province.
There are very difficult monetary problems between the South and the North because of our entry into the Community. The fact that considerable smuggling went on when I had the privilege of being a Minister over there—I think it has increased since—highlights those problems.
All this, I believe, must lead the Government to make greater effort to solve these monetary problems. Revaluation of the green pound by regular steps would help to stop the distortion of trade and help the meat plants which are so crucial and which should be able to have the raw material instead of seeing it walking over the border into the South.
Thirdly, it is important to see that the poorer areas of Northern Ireland—and they are poorer as one goes further west—should be allowed the same semi-social aids for remote areas as apply in the South. It is important that there should be parity in these matters, particularly so that the wetter, poorer, remoter areas can take advantage of the Community grants available—aids for improvements, subsidies on stock and so on.
Fourthly, I still hope that the Government will give every encouragement to the export of products from Northern Ireland—for example, I am thinking of Northern Ireland's world-renowned seed potatoes. Pigmeat and beef and dairy exports should, where possible, have further encouragement.
Northern Ireland has a well-organised marketing system—indeed, it is an object lesson to the rest of the United Kingdom—but it needs extra encouragement and extra facilities. The Minister and others concerned must watch carefully the deal which has been set up between France and Southern Ireland. The sheep agreement could cause problems not only to England but to Northern Ireland as well. We must work much harder to gain our share of the sheep market in France.
Finally, and very important, stability in the rural areas plays its part in solving the problem of Northern Ireland. I have no doubt that, if the problems had been greater in the rural areas, the whole problem of Northern Ireland would have been far worse. I pay tribute to both Catholic and Protestant fanners, who have carried on under extremely difficult conditions. That stability is really worth encouraging. A prosperous agriculture


reflected back in a prosperous food processing industry must influence the position as a whole in Northern Ireland.
I give one example, from the town of Newry, which I know something about. If the meat plant at Newry was working flat out, if it had the raw material necessary and the cattle were not moving across the border because of the monetary problems, I believe that the work force would be more contented and there would be fewer problems in the town because it would be more prosperous Therefore, stability is tremendously important in the rural areas, and it is up to the Government to see that they provide the necessary funds to maintain that stability.

10.39 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Members from Northern Ireland find themselves in grave difficulty in this House in that two very important Departments, Health and Social Services and Education, have no direct spokesman in the House answerable to the elected representatives, because those Departments are looked after by a member of another place.
Following the last debate that we had in this House, the Under-Secretary impressed upon the noble Lord—and I am most grateful to the Under-Secretary for this—that he should condescend to meet the principals of the grammar schools. Through the good services of the Undersecretary, that meeting has at last taken place. But out of it came an amazing affirmation by the noble Lord. He said that he did not think that any legislation would be necessary in changing the whole school system in Northern Ireland. That means that this House will be bereft of a full-scale debate on the education system that we are to have in Northern Ireland. No representative in Northern Ireland could tolerate that state of affairs—to change the whole education system of Northern Ireland without legislation coming before this House, and to do it in an administrative manner.
Let us look at the way in which it is being done. Three working parties have been set up, and before they have ever reported the Minister has gone ahead with seeking to introduce a comprehensive system in secondary education. I wonder

why the working parties were ever set up. What is the point of setting up working parties to make recommendations when, before they have an opportunity to report, the Minister goes ahead in this way? The boards in Northern Ireland, with a non-elected majority, have people who are answerable to nobody but the Minister who appoints them. These boards, irrespective of the working parties' recommendations or any financial or management consideration, are proceeding along the path that the Minister has outlined.
The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) put his finger on the nub of the matter in our last debate when he said that it was not a matter of the 11-plus. Selection is a red herring that has been drawn into the debate. There is now under way a plan prepared by the Minister, irrespective of the 11-plus and the selection procedure that is now being adopted, to change the whole education system of Northern Ireland. It may be Government policy, but surely the Government should consult Parliament. Surely the elected representatives should not have this matter thrust on them in a second hand manner and then, what is more, be told that it is an administrative matter and that it will not be a legislative matter in any manner whatsoever.
We are here tonight to discuss matters that concern every facet of life in Northern Ireland. While we welcome the intervention of the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills), who used to look after agriculture—and who went to the remote island of Rathlin with me on one occasion—we find ourselves on this occasion with a one-and-a-half-hour debate. The Minister has to open and to answer the debate, and time has to be allowed to the Opposition Front Bench spokesman. In what time is left, we have to deal with all these matters which are relevant to the life of our Province. Then, to add insult to injury, the Secretary of State comes beaming on the "box", smoking his pipe, and telling us about the beneficial effect of direct rule. He tells us what a wonderful thing it is, and that the 12 Members have every opportunity to raise every facet of life and to debate these things in this House, the Mother of Parliaments.
But what do we discover? We discover that we cannot move an amendment to Orders in Council. We are tied to time


when we deal with these matters of importance. I have not time in which to develop the education debate, but I say to the Under-Secretary of State that this is a matter which runs right down into the hearts of the people of Northern Ireland.
It is not a matter of Roman Catholic grammar schools versus Protestant grammer schools versus inter-denominational grammar schools. All the grammar schools are united. Sometimes we have unity in Northern Ireland. It may be that that is not known in this House. Surely the Under-Secretary of State must go to Lord Melchett and call a halt to the attempt to bypass Parliament. A halt must be called to going ahead with plans until the working committee's report is available. There must then be the opportunity for a public debate.
The Prime Minister said about education in the rest of Great Britain "Let there be a grand debate". Evidently there is to be no grand debate on education in Northern Ireland. What we are to have is a foregone conclusion.
The Minister has written to many hon. Members about the nominated boards. I received a letter following representations that were made in the House. The Minister told me that he is satisfied with those serving on the boards. Of course he is satisfied. It was the Minister who appointed them. No one would expect him to write that he is not satisfied with those serving on the boards.
One example that I give the House concerns a member of the Southern Board sitting at Armagh. Apparently the gentleman concerned flabbergasted the other board members by saying that he did not know why he had been appointed a member of the board. He explained that he had no education interest but that he was retired and had plenty of time, so he thought he would go along. The elected representatives nearly fell off their chairs when they heard that. No doubt the Minister is pleased with him as he will vote in the way that the Minister wants. These are serious matters, and I am sure that the Under-Secretary appreciates this. We appreciate that when this issue was raised previously the Undersecretary arranged for the principals to meet the Minister,

Mr. Dunn: In the main, those who are appointed to the boards are recommended by local authorities, district councils and other bodies within the education system. It is not always possible to know that someone has reservations about joining a board. I am surprised that the gentleman concerned accepted the appointment if he had reservations. If the hon. Gentleman will give us further details, we shall make it easy for the board member to withdraw.

Rev. Ian Paisley: What if the gentleman concerned does not want to withdraw, the appointment having been made for a certain period? I do not think that he can be removed. Let it be clear that district councillor board members are a minority. The elected representatives are always a minority.
I turn to a matter that I have raised before—namely, the hospitals in North Antrim. I have not yet had an answer from Lord Melchett about the hospital in the Antrim area. Tomorrow there will be a large lobby at the House concerning the future of the White Abbey Hospital. Is the Minister able to help us by telling the House what he intends to do with the hospitals in North Antrim? What is to happen to the Moyle Hos- pital? What is its future? A question mark is hanging over it. What is the future of the Route Hospital? There is a question mark over it. What is to happen to the Waveney Hospital? What about the hospital which featured in the letter I wrote to the Minister? What is to be the future of these hospitals? The matters cannot be allowed to be put in abeyance. We must know the future of the hospitals.
It seems that the noble Lord does not take these issues seriously when representations are made to him. There is strong feeling about the hospitals. I draw attention to the White Abbey Hospital, which is not in my constituency but in the constituency of the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr Molyneaux). I mention it because it is visited by people from my area.
A similar situation exists at the Coleraine Hospital, and the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) will no doubt raise the matter if he catches the eye of the Chair. We went on a joint deputation, because our constituents attend that hospital, to put forward a case concerning


the purchase of an instrument. It was only after a long haggle and argument that the instrument could be bought to be used for the saving of life.
There is also the matter of aged people being kept in hospitals. I had a minister of the Irish Presbyterian Church at my home the other morning. He was in a state of desperation because an old lady of 91 who was in hospital had been told that she would have to go to her own home on the coming Monday and there was no bed for her. She was to go back to her own home even though there was no one there to look after her. It was only after I contacted the Ministry's office and made strong representations that that matter was dealt with. I ask the Minister to think of the concern of that old lady when she was told by the almoner that she would have to go home. I am sure that the Minister, as a compassionate human being, has every sympathy with people who find themselves in that situation, and I trust that he will take these matters on board tonight and do something about them.
Under Class I there is a matter that I should like to call to the Minister's attention. I hope to have a meeting with him about it, but because that meeting will not be for some days I ask him now to realise the urgency of the issue and to do something about it. It relates to an order that was made about scallop fishing off the coast of North Antrim. The order has effectively closed down the fishing. There is a factory there that was paid for by a large grant of LEDW money, but because of the order to which I have referred the factory is out of operation. It is terrible that one Government Department builds a factory and another makes an order that puts it out of operation. I trust that the Minister will take that matter on board and make urgent inquiries about it.
One matter that bedevils us all is planning, and I trust that the Minister will look at the operation of planning applications. I have received representations from a man who wanted to change the use of his property. He wanted to change it from commercial to some other use. I shall not mention the man's name or his business for security reasons, but he received a letter from the Ministry as

long ago as 1972 saying that he would not need planning permission for what he proposed. He made certain alterations to his property and then received another letter, dated 9th January 1974, repeating that he did not need planning permission.
On 9th March 1976 he received a letter in the following terms:
With reference to your inquiry I would inform you that under planning Acts the change of use does not require an application for planning.
However, the Minister's Department has now moved against that man and got an enforcement order to put him out because he needs planning permission for the alterations that he has made to the property. As a result, 17 people will lose their employment. The Department must deal with the matter urgently, because we cannot afford to have people put out of employment in this way.
Class VI relates to water, sewerage and other public health services. I call the Minister's attention to the rural districts of Northern Ireland and to the need to speed up the provision of sewerage and mains water supplies. On the outskirts of the prosperous town of Ballymoney in my constituency, there are cottages that have no electric supply, no sewerage facilities and no mains water supplies. The people have been told time and again that they will get those amenities, but so far they have not materialised. These are serious matters, and I would draw the Minister's attention to them.
I have been asked to raise another matter concerning the Northern Ireland Assembly. Under expenditure proposed for the year ending 1979 in Class XI, mention is made of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I understand that the Clerk of the Assembly is still in office. That is an important office. But the parliamentary doorkeepers have recently had their status changed. Although the Clerk—who is a most important person—keeps his office, salary and pension, those men who served in the old Parliament, the Convention and the Assembly have now been told "You no longer have any status. You are reduced to ordinary messengers". Why has that taken place, especially since there is still reference to the Northern Ireland Assembly?
I should like to have dealt with manpower services, the Fair Employment Agency and the report which received widespread publicity suggesting that employers in Northern Ireland were carrying out deliberate and systematic discrimination against their Roman Catholic fellow countrymen However, time does not permit me to do so. I would only say to the Minister that there are many matters which ought to be discussed and for which time should have been provided. All of them have to do with the well-being of the people of Northern Ireland of all shades of opinion. But tonight we are hampered and severely restricted by a discussion which must be narrowed to this particular timetable.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. Wm. Ross: As we have only a few minutes left, I shall be brief. I want to refer to the problems of agriculture in Northern Ireland. Whenever one finds an Appropriation Order in his postbox, there is the dazzling prospect of raising almost every constituency matter that the mind of man can conceive. However, my party leader informs me that I must speak about agriculture and bring to the notice of the Minister some of the underlying problems contained therein.
I should like to ask the Minister, first, whether there is any possibility of a longer-term policy being evolved for the meat industry employment scheme. That is a costly scheme, but it is absolutely necessary to maintain employment in the Northern Ireland meat industry. Since it is renewed for only relatively short periods of time, confidence does not exist to plan for the long-term future. Can the Minister give us any hope that this scheme will be continued until it is no longer necessary?
My second point concerns the problem of the Northern Ireland milk farmer. The Minister is aware that there is only one month to go until the money runs out under the old United Kingdom marketing scheme. Can the Minister tell us whether a policy to run from 1st April has as yet been decided upon in order to give some hope to the milk farmers? If such a scheme is not forthcoming, can he tell us what level of production he envisages for the future? I fear that there is little scope for expansion if such a scheme is not drawn up and announced at once.
A short-term meat industry employment scheme is not good enough in that regard. If the milk industry is to continue at anything like its present level, there must be a long-term scheme to give stability to the farmers involved in that costly undertaking.
Another problem which is basic to the whole farming industry in Northern Ireland is the difficulty facing the Northern Ireland grain trade which supplies the feed for the farmer. The plain truth is that over the years the high level of that specialised production was built up with North American grain. In other words, farmers in Northern Ireland, being restricted in acres on the grounds, bought acres by buying grain.
That was all very well until we entered the Common Market, but all at once those supplies of grain from North America were choked off. We have to import 80 per cent, of the grain we need because we cannot grow enough. We have to import from Eastern England and Southern Ireland, and, no matter what the level of production is in these areas, it is always a seller's market to Northern Ireland.
There are problems that did not become apparent until the wolf was at the door. In the year of the drought, grain was scarce and prices were high, but at least they were high for everyone and everybody started even. But this year there is a bumper crop and millers in Northern Ireland tell me that when they imported from the United States the economies of scale with 15,000 to 20,000 ton loads were apparent, but there are no such storage facilities in Eastern England and when the Northern Ireland buyers arrive on the scene the price of grain goes through the roof.
The hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills), who knows about these things, is nodding in agreement. The largest loads that can be imported from Eastern England are 2,000 tons, and these are only buckets in the ocean. If the Northern Ireland industry is to survive, alternative sources of feed must be found. The present sources are causing great heart-searching among many undertakings and are causing rationalisation, which means the closing of mills. There is also considerable heart-searching in the poultry


industry and the intensive pig industry in Northern Ireland.
I understand that under Article 42 of the Treaty of Rome it is possible to protect existing industries. I hope that the Government will explore this possibility in order to find a way round the problem.
What is the Government's view on the Economic Council's important report on farming? It is the Council's first report and it cannot be ignored. Even at this short notice, we need the Government's view. There is no reason for their not having formulated a view, at least in part, and I shall be obliged if the Minister will tell us what is to be done to protect the farming industry as the Council recommends.
The Minister knows about the problem of stray dogs and how it is affecting the sheep industry. The Secretary of State told the Ulster farmers' union in December that something would be done and that the Government were seeking the views of local councils. Have the councils replied? If so, what do the Government intend to do about the problem this year—not next year? The sooner a start is made, the sooner the problem will be overcome.
Agriculture in Northern Ireland is in a reasonable shape, but only because the enormous problems caused by our entry into the EEC are veiled. The problems are deep-rooted and they will not go away. If the Government want agriculture to succeed, they must pay attention to the underlying problems and to hon. Members and the Economic Council—which, goodness knows, has few farmers among its members—who are trying to give advice based on the best available information.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: As two hon. Members have already dealt at length with the important subject of agriculture, I do not intend to go over that ground again. However, I agree with what has been said. Healthy agriculture is vital to Northern Ireland. The prosperity of Northern Ireland depends on it. I shall return to that subject on a later occasion. Certainly farmers in Northern Ireland are efficient. They do not and cannot afford to waste money. But that does not apply to this Government.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to some examples of waste or misdirection of public funds by this Government. I understood that the Government took great pride in trying to reduce the flood tide of foreign cars and were doing their best in particular to reduce the number of Japanese motor cars coming into the United Kingdom. Of course the public are entitled to buy what makes of cars they wish, but if they are sensible they will choose with care.
The Government, who are using taxpayers' money to bolster up British Leyland, should do their best to boost the British car industry. Therefore, I was surprised—though one ought to cease to be surprised at anything that happens in Northern Ireland under this Government—when I received an advertisement, inserted in the Press by the Department of Manpower Services, stating that during the months of April to June this year the Department acquires not British cars but three Datsun cars 1976 to 1977, models 140J, with 1428cc engines, one Datsun, model 120 Sunny, with 1171cc engine, one Renault 6 or 16 with 1108cc engine and one Renault 12 or 12TL saloon with 1289cc engine.
Will the Minister explain why, on the one hand, we have the powerful figure of the Secretary of State for Industry trying to help the British car industry and, on the other hand, we have the Department of Manpower Services selecting these foreign cars for purchase? Why are these particuar cars, specified in such detail, required? How much will they cost? The Minister must give the House an answer tonight on this important subject.
I turn to another example. At colossal public expense, a burns unit was established at the Royal Victoria Hospital. We all know that, with the terrorism which is taking place and the incendiary devices which are being exploded in Northern Ireland, a burns unit is and has been essential for some time. But that burns unit, though set up at taxpayers' expense—I cannot remember what the sum was, but perhaps the Minister will tell us—and ready to be used, has not been used. It is empty. There is not a patient there. It is not operational. I do not know when it will be operational. But, because it has taken a year or two years to reach this stage and


is still not operational, the extremely expensive equipment that was placed there is now out of date. For example, new types of low air loss beds at about £3,500 each have, had to be bought, and all the training and so on has gone by the board.
That is another example of how this Government handle taxpayers' money. The Government are always quick to criticise the Ulster people for the demands that they make upon national funds because of terrorism. Why, despite all the demands by the surgeons and others involved with the Royal Victoria Hospital, has that burns unit not been opened? Indeed, after the La Mon House massacre the burns unit at the Royal Victoria Hospital was not available to the victims, and some of the victims were brought to the Ulster Hospital in Dundonald. Only then, at that late stage, were three low air loss beds provided. And yet these beds could have been provided earlier. When the hospital wanted them for paraplegics they were not available.
I turn to the provision of houses for English civil servants in the Northern Ireland Office, a subject which is dear to my heart. I find that the profligacy of the Government is boundless. Even during the public expenditure cuts in 1976 the Government were able to spend £1,600,000 on houses and flats for English civil servants at the Stormont Office and a further £250,000 on creating flats in the former Speaker's house.
Anyone who wants to know how taxpayers' money is misused should listen to the story of the purchase of a house called Jedna at Donaghadee. The house was put on the market by the owner, who was ready to accept £29,000 from an ordinary citizen. Most Stormont civil servants could not afford that price. Out of the blue came an offer from the Government of £30,000. In other words, they usurped a prospective buyer by £1,000 of taxpayers' money.
Over the next two years £3,000 was spent on renovation and repairs, after which it was sold for the same sum as the Government bought it for. During that period, house prices in Northern Ireland went up by 30 per cent. If that is the way this Government manage affairs, it is no wonder that the country

is in such a sorry state. Now I learn that those English civil servants are not liable to tax in respect of the accommodation provided.
Although those English civil servants receive the same salaries as their counterparts in England or Scotland, they receive diplomatic rate of living allowances as if they were in Bangkok or Hong Kong. But Northern Ireland is neither of those places. It is within the United Kingdom and should be treated as a domestic area. I do not see why these civil servants should get these higher allowances.
Time is limited, so I shall restrict myself to one more topic—the Fair Employment Agency. Conceived in the belief that bureaucratic intervention, as distinct from the pursuit of individual rights through the courts, is a better protection against those who discriminate on grounds of religion or politics, this Agency has set up a pernicious system of investigation which falls somewhere between the Court of Star Chamber and McCarthyism in Washington.
The notorious case of the Education and Libraries Board is well known in Northern Ireland. It is vital that the House should know what is taking place. The Board advertised for staff. Applicants were short-listed and interviews were held in strict accordance with the correct code of procedure. One of the rejected applicants for one job was a member of the SDLP. He complained to the Fair Employment Agency that he had been rejected for political reasons. That was not so, but the machinery of the Agency was put into action.
Each member of the Board who was present at the interviews was grilled individually for two hours or more in a closed room. The observer from the Staff Commission, who is not expected to put questions to applicants and is there only to ensure that correct procedures are adhered to, was subjected to the same treatment and cross-examination. At one stage the Agency was refusing a request that the members of the Board should be accompanied by a solicitor, for their own protection. It later relented on this point, after pressure. Is it any wonder that it is getting more difficult to get people to serve on interview boards when this sort of high-handed action is taken?


I have much more I could say, but I shall refrain from doing so because others want to speak. It is a disgrace that hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies cannot debate an important topic such as appropriation at great length. This debate is a sorry charade.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Philip: It is plain that there is massive alarm about the Government's plans for education. It is important that this matter should be debated in the near future in this House so that Northern Ireland Members may make plain their alarm about the Government's intentions.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. Dunn: I should like first to deal with the question of the length of time available. I was under the impression that the usual channels had reached agreement that there would be a security debate, which would not be protracted after eight o'clock. I can understand the choice of priorities, and I agree with the priorities. I do not thing it right to complain that time has been denied to the House when there was this gentleman's agreement.

Mr. Kilfedder: There was no gentleman's agreement with me.

Mr. Dunn: I do not want to be drawn by the hon. Gentleman. I was trying to be helpful.
Let me deal with the major issues of the debate. No doubt uppermost in the minds of most people is the Economic Planning Council. I am pleased to report that the new Economic Planning Council, under the chairmanship of Sir Charles Carter, has begun the development of its role as an independent source of advice to the Government on economic affairs.
The report on agricultural affairs is now being studied in detail and the Government will be consulting the council in the context of economic planning being the making of submissions related to the different aspects of the Northern Ireland economy on the one hand and the examining of forecasts and proposals emanating from the Government's economic planning unit on the other hand.
The staff of the Central Economic Service in the Department of Finance are currently being strengthened. Later this

month the new director of the service, Dr. Van Slootan, will be taking up duties. Dr. Van Slootan is an economist who has been working in the Government's service for a number of years. He is being transferred from the Department of Health and Social Security in London to take up this new assignment. I am sure that the House would want me to wish him well in his new post.
Two issues were brought to my attention by the hon. Members for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and for Londonderry (Mr. Ross). One of the points referred to the meat industry employment scheme. It is not possible to extend this scheme on an indefinite basis. The period has already been extended from three months to six months.

Mr. Peter Mills: The industry needs long-term help.

Mr. Dunn: It is all right for the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) to make those comments. I am tempted to ask whether he would do any better if he had the opportunity. It would be unfair to ask that.
It is not possible at present to fund that scheme on an indefinite basis. However, during the next few weeks we shall be considering the possibility of extending the time scale. It may be possible to extend the scheme for a year at a time. Although I appreciate the importance of enabling producers to plan ahead as far as possible, I still say that there are difficulties in the way, and the hon. Member for Devon, West will be well aware of some of the difficulties I face, because he faced the same difficulties.
Discussions are in progress on the problems of maintaining the milk return in Northern Ireland after 1st April. Everyone will appreciate that at this stage I cannot say when it will be possible to announce the decision other than to assure the House that a decision will be announced at the earliest possible moment because the future of the milk sector is greatly dependent upon it. We cannot ignore the fact that what we decide to do must be cleared through the normal channels with the European Commission. That is not always an easy task. We cannot just ignore this responsibility. We shall consult our partners in Europe.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) raised a fundamental


issue which has been mentioned across the Floor of the House for the past 12 months—namely, the timing of appropriation debates. I express to the right hon. Gentleman my appreciation of the interest he has taken in this subject and of the guidance and advice he has given. I have noted with satisfaction the outcome of his correspondence with his right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. The right hon. Gentleman knows the problems and does not need me to refer to them in detail. He knows also that to some degree I share his views on this matter. However, there are difficulties that are not easily overcome. They can be overcome only by co-operation. The Comptroller and Auditor-General's report for 1976–77 on the appropriation accounts will be considered shortly by the PAC, and I hope that another stage in progress can be achieved then with his help and that of his right hon. Friend.

Mr. Powell: We might even, with luck, if the PAC gets it in hand early, have the Government's comments on the PAC's report before the next appropriation debate.

Mr. Dunn: I shall not tread too far along that path.
A number of right hon. and hon. Members have raised the question of education. I said in the previous debate, and I repeat, that my noble Friend, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and myself are all in the same position. At the end of the day, it is the Secretary of State who is responsible for policy in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State is a Member of the House. I assure any hon. Members who may have reservations or apprehensions about anything that may happen in education that it will come before the House and they will be able to make their comments. I cannot go further than say that it will be before the House in one way or another. Questions related to our having a debate on education should be directed to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
The hon. Member for Abingdon and other hon. Members will realise that there are such things as Supply Days. In the past, there were arrangements whereby

the official Opposition allowed part of its Supply Day time to be shared by minority parties. I have no doubt that there is great potential there.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman's noble Friend has intimated to the principals of the grammar schools that the reorganisation of education will be proceeded with without legislation. In that case, the opportunities for elected representatives to discuss proposed legislation will not arise. We have no influence with the Leader of the Opposition. I did not know anything about the arrangements for this debate. We do not understand what is happening. I can make my contribution only as I get the opportunity.

Mr. Dunn: Again, I assure the hon. Gentleman that this matter will be brought before the House before changes are made. Those assurances have been given by my noble Friend. He has made clear that the consultative process has not been completed. When all the consultations are finished, there will, no doubt, be a report drawn up and submitted—

Mr. McCusker: Mr. McCusker (Armagh)rose—

Mr. Dunn: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to continue? I know that he takes a great interest in this matter, although his views and mine do not always go well together. He will be aware that when the consultations are finished there will be a presentation to both Houses of any reorganisation consequent upon those consultations.
Until the consultations are finished, it is not possible to say what the total cost of any reorganisation will be. The estimate was given merely as a yardstick or measures to give some indication. The hon. Member for Abingdon is tying me down rather hard when he asks for the exact costings. He knows very well that, were our positions reversed, he would not be able to give the figures either until the consultations were completed.
On the question of a uniform system of comprehensive schools, I can only give the assurance, which the Government have repeatedly given, that it will be for area boards in consultation with individual schools to do the planning of any restructuring in their areas, and the Government will naturally accept that advice,


taking into account that in different geographical areas there may be a desire to adopt not identical systems.
My noble Friend said to those whom he has met, including the Association of Governing Bodies of Grammar Schools at the meeting held on 28th November last, that he would be prepared to respond to any request reasonably made in the consultative process. He has made clear that any request for a meeting from association of parents would not be declined.
The problem is that there have not been many requests for such meetings with my noble Friend. On the last occasion when the desire of headmasters to have a meeting was brought to my attention, my noble Friend was not made aware of it until it was raised in the House. As soon as I notified my noble Friend, the meeting was arranged. The hon. Gentleman gave me credit which really I did not deserve. My noble Friend responded right away when he was aware that there was a wish to have a meeting.
There is much to be said about education, and there is no possibility of developing it properly tonight, so I leave the matter there. I shall try to deal with the fundamental and complex matters raised by hon. Members by writing to them at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Kilfedder: What about foreign cars?

Mr. Dunn: From a sedentary position the hon. Member makes his outburst about foreign cars, hoping thereby to have the last word, but I shall stop him. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman, giving him as detailed a reply as possible.
On the problem of time, I, too, should have liked to deal more fully with the many issues which have been raised with me, both now and in the past, but I regret that, due to circumstances beyond my control—and now, I learn, beyond others' control too—it is not possible to do so. I hope that the House will accept the order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT)

11.30 p.m.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): I beg to move,
That the draft Industries Development (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 7th February, be approved.
The order will provide for the transfer of certain undertakings which were formerly the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation from the Northern Ireland Development Agency to the Department of Commerce. The undertakings actually transferred will be determined by the Department of Commerce with the consent of the Department of Finance in consultation with the Northern Ireland Development Agency.
The Agency was established in 1976 under the Industries Development (Northern Ireland) Order as the successor to the Finance Corporation, with the task of developing Northern Ireland industry and creating employment. It is required to act in a broadly commercial manner. However, under the terms of the 1976 order, the property, rights and liabilities of the Finance Corporation, including responsibility for all its undertakings, were vested in the Agency. The Agency examined these undertakings and categorised them as either commercial or non-commercial.
The non-commercial cases were then sub-divided into three groups: those which the Department of Commerce directed the Agency to support for social and political reasons; secondly, those which the Department of Commerce did not consider it was justified in directing the Agency to continue to support, and which are effectively in limbo; and, thirdly, those which are at present in receivership or liquidation. All these cases will be transferred to the Department of Commerce, while the Agency will retain responsibility for the commercial cases.
The non-commercial cases inherited from the Finance Corporation take up a great deal of the Agency's time on largely unproductive work and serve to deflect it from its main commercial functions. Once the Department assumes responsibility for them, the Agency will be able to concentrate on its commercial role.


as do its counterparts, the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies. There will be no additional public expenditure as a result of these proposals.

11.32 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: I welcome the order, especially because the Development Agency will now be able to concentrate on its commercial role, as do its counterparts in Scotland and Wales. It is also welcome that there will be no additional cost to public funds as a result. I hope that after it has shed these encumbrances the Agency will be able to make the major contribution to the recovery of the Northern Ireland economy for which we all hope but which it has not so far been able to make.
Can the Minister say more about the extent and cost of the non-commercial functions which are being transferred? He said that they had been sub-divided into three, but I was not clear what amount was involved.

11.33 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gow: Our debates today have been characterised by a confession from the Under-Secretary about the unsatisfactory way in which we discuss Northern Ireland matters. Although accepting the Minister's reasons for expecting the previous debate on Northern Ireland Security to end at eight o'clock, I must say that discussions between the two Front Benches about the time for a debate on security in the Province are intensely unsatisfactory to other hon. Members.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In fairness to all concerned, I think that it should be made clear that there were discussions not only between the two Front Benches but also with Ulster Unionist Members and, so far as I know, with other hon. Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland. If there was a mistake, it was in not having a business motion which would have safeguarded a minimum time for the Appropriation Order in any case. I did not think that I should allow the hon. Gentleman to put on the record what, inadvertently, he had supposed.

Mr. Gow: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I think that he and I are at one in saying that the time which is allowed in the House for debating

Northern Ireland matters and the way in which we debate orders are the reverse of satisfactory.
The Minister has not told the House—although, of course, this is clear in the 1976 order—exactly to which undertakings he was referring. But he divided the undertakings into three categories: the first, those which were being supported for social reasons; secondly those which were in limbo; and, thirdly those which are at present in receivership.
The manner in which we debate these subjects is highlighted by the Minister's speech. The Government have a duty to explain to the House in much greater detail than the Minister did. I know that he is as concerned as we all are about the restrictions of time, but I hope that he will tell us specifically which under takings are still supported for social reasons, which are in limbo and which are in receivership.
The Minister explained that there would be no additional cost to public funds as a result of approval of the order. Of course, we all accept what he says, but, where there are undertakings in receivership and where there are undertakings which, to use his own words, are in limbo, I hope that he will tell the House to what extent those undertakings may be a prospective charge upon the public purse.

11.36 p.m.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: It is true that the Northern Ireland Development Agency welcomes this enabling legislation, but before we place ourselves alongside the Agency in that respect it must be said that we deplore the kind of past Government miscalculations which make this sort of enabling legislation necessary. As the Minister rightly said, the reasons for this legislation are that the Agency has various undertakings and responsibilities which deflect it from fulfilling its intended role.
To illustrate that, one looks at article 2 of the order dealing with the vesting of property in the Department of Commerce. I understand that the Agency is presently lumbered with the responsibility of man aging a warehouse here in London which formerly belonged to the Ben Sherman company, and that the costs of maintaining the warehouse, of meeting problems of dereliction and so on are such as to take a great toll of time and money.
When we move to article 4, dealing with loans, we again move into interesting waters, in that the Agency has assumed responsibility for some of those dreadful loans and commitments to, for example, Strathearn Audio. I do not know how any Government Department could possibly carry out its functions with that kind of albatross around its neck.
Therefore, we appreciate why the Agency welcomes this enabling legislation, which will divest it of the responsibiity for that kind of operation. But, while we certainly welcome the clearing-up operation which the order enables, we ask the Government not to get the Agency into that kind of trouble in future by resorting to social arguments which are seen really to be socio-political arguments when we look closely at the Strathearn Audio and Ben Sherman operations. We welcome the order, but we deplore the reasons for having to bring it into being.

11.40 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: We are all interested in the activities of the Northern Ireland Development Agency, but some of us are not too happy about its predecessor, the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation. In this order an attempt is being made to sweep under the carpet some of the tragic happenings concerning the expenditure of finance by that Corporation. Will the Department take on and continue the liabilities which were entered into by that Corporation? Is that what this order means? Will the new Development Agency have a bailiwick of its own? The Minister nods in agreement.
In those circumstances, can the Minister help us about the operations which were not financially sound and which are still in his hands? What will he do about them? Will he continue to help ducks which are lame in both feet, or will he kill them off? Hon. Members laugh, but some of us had dealings with the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation. Some of us have no business acumen at all, but we know that some of the money put by that Corporation into certain ventures could have been better used.
For instance, I should like the Minister to tell us what will happen to Strathearn Audio and similar enterprises. Will there be a continuation? If so, large sums of money will have to be paid in bogus

redundancy payments—and I use those words with consideration. In the event of the closure of a factory, there are golden handshakes to reduce the number of employed, and after a while the number must be reduced again, so there are other golden handshakes. I am told on good authority that the amount of contracts that Strathearn Audio has received is so low there it would be far better to pay the people to go home than to fulfil the contracts. Mr. Gordon Smith says from time to time that it was always bad, so it could not be worse than it is. That type of comment leads the people of Northern Ireland to despair that we are putting good money into operations which will not bring benefit.
Is the Development Agency prepared to consider service industry? Grants are not made to service industry and, as a result, many viable service industries in Northern Ireland are being closed, resulting in unemployment, whereas a helpful cash flow could save them. I know that the Minister is interested in keeping jobs in Northern Ireland and, therefore, I wonder whether he could help in this matter.

11.44 p.m.

Mr. Concannon: I thank the House for the general welcome that it has given to the order. The order is the result of negotiations between the Northern Ireland Development Agency and my Department and myself.
Hon. Members have wondered whether the new Agency will be left to pursue many of the albatrosses left by the former Corporation. The number of cases being transferred is 20, and the total amount of money involved is approximately £6,100,000, almost £800,000 of which is invested by way of equity, with the balance as loans. As soon as this order is passed, I become owner of a warehouse belonging to the Ben Sherman group.

Mr. Powell: Arising out of that, I hope that before we part with the order the right hon. Gentleman will explain what he is going to do with the albatrosses. We understand that the Agency is not very good at looking after them, but what grounds have we for supposing that the Department of Commerce is a natural and purpose-made albatross keeper? Seriously, is it the policy—and, if so, should it not now be stated—to dispose of these and


accept whatever losses there might be but at any rate to get rid of these liabilities as soon as reasonably possible?

Mr. Concannon: The right hon. Gentleman is looking at the greatest keeper of albatrosses that Northern Ireland has had for a considerable time. It is not my intention to publish the names of these companies. I do not think that there would be strong objection to naming those in receivership or liquidation, but it is felt that publication of the names of the remaining companies could be detrimental to their future trading prospects.
As for the companies which are in receivership or liquidation, the Department will liaise with the receivers and liquidators to ensure an orderly winding-up. The Department does not propose automatically to provide additional assistance to the remaining companies, nor does it intend to apply pressure on them to wind up their affairs. The cases will be examined individually to assess their prospects and see whether there is any scope for the provision of additional assistance or for a financial restructuring which might effect a turn-around in their fortunes.
Out of 20, there are 14 in receivership—in other words, in the third category which I have explained. There are five which I and my Department will have to look at individually to assess whether we can save the jobs.
In the case of Strathearn Audio Limited, the Government have made it clear to the company that the current financial support cannot be continued indefinitely and that its performance and prospects will continue to be closely scrutinised. The Government wrote off losses and accumulated interest charges totalling £5·4 million at the beginning of 1977. However, the company has not prospered, and towards the end of 1977 NIDA, which owns the share capital of almost £1·7 million decided that it could not provide further funds.
Since then, the Department of Commerce has funded the company and the whole operation has been rationalised with the work force being cut from 300 to 160 by means of voluntary redundancies. The number of products being manufactured is now confined to one turntable and one mid-range unit for

incorporation in loudspeakers. The company is continuing to make strenuous efforts to improve production and sales to a point where it will become self-supporting, and it is searching for a company or companies which will participate in the venture as manufacturing and/or marketing partners.

Rev. Ian Paisley: What controlling plan was there for the company? What contracts did it get in the last 12 months in hard cash terms?

Mr. Concannon: Hard cash would be helpful to me as the Minister who has become responsible for Strathearn Audio. I make it clear that it is still owned by NIDA. The Department of Commerce has been providing funds, and, of course, it is being very closely monitored until the end of this month, when I shall be reassessing the whole situation. All these things—finance, marketing and so on—are being closely monitored. We are doing this because we do not want another Strathearn Audio situation. It is vital, if we are to have operations such as this, which we need and which are part of the strategy, that we ensure that they are successful.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Are we to understand that Strathearn Audio is now manufacturing nothing but loudspeakers? Has the company a market for what it produces? Is it selling the product?

Mr. Concannon: It is making one style of turntable and loudspeaker instead of the various ranges. We have cut it down to what the company, the management and the work force said they could do best. There is a world market for these things. I have given them a particular time in which to prove to themselves that they can produce them and sell throughout the world. The performance is being very closely monitored.
Strathearn Audio is within one of my areas of highest unemployment, and if there is any loss of jobs in that area the workers cannot simply go down the road and get another job. There is no possibility at all of that. The unemployment figure in the area is between 40 and 45 per cent. It is vital that we should learn our lessons from such episodes as that of Strathearn Audio.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Will the Minister give the assurance that any such development in the future will be judged by its potential viability before it is embarked upon? Will he relate that to what is being proposed in the way of industrial development on the fringe of the Poleglass Estate? If that estate plan gets off the ground, will the Minister give the assurance that public money will not be poured into something which will be a non-starter?

Mr. Concannon: We have not only Strathearn Audio. There is the Viking factory in Londonderry and there is another factory in Strabane. In certain areas we have to proceed in this respect. We have to make sure that the public money we are spending is very tightly controlled and that we are making the best use of it. Certainly many people have been employed at Strathearn Audio who have never been employed before. We believe that we have learnt a lot of lessons from it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Industries Development (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 7th February be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (PROPERTY)

11.52 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James A. Dunn): I beg to move,
That the draft Property (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 18th January, be approved.
The purpose of the order is to implement some of the recommendations made by a working party of the Faculty of Law at Queen's University, Belfast, under the chairmanship of Professor L. A. Sheridan, in its report dated 11th March 1970 to the Director of Law Reform on the land law of Northern Ireland.
The changes proposed by the order are ones which can be made and operated quite independently of any large-scale reform of land law. They are also of sufficient practical importance to justify their introduction now.
The proposed order would confer on the Lands Tribunal for Northern Ireland

power to declare whether land is subject to a restrictive covenant and power to discharge or vary obligations or restrictions which unnecessarily impede the use and development of land.
The order also deals with a number of comparatively minor technical difficulties which can arise when a transfer of property or an agreement affecting property involves two or more persons acting on the same side or involves the same person acting on the same side, or the same person acting on opposite sides in different capacities, such as when a man sells property to a partnership of which he is a member.
In view of the late hour, I have shortened the introduction to the order. I commend it to the House. If hon. Members have any questions, I shall do my best to answer them.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: We do not wish to oppose the order. As we understand it, it represents a first step towards the modernisation of the Northern Ireland land law. In introducing it in another place, Lord Melchett explained that the land law in Northern Ireland had been brought more into line with the law in England but that the position in Northern Ireland was sill roughly equivalent to that in England before the Birk-enhead legislation in 1925. If that is the position, presumably the order is a tidying-up operation. Although progress seems to have been rather slow, we have no opposition to the order.

11.56 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I hope that the Minister will enlarge on the order. I know that the hour is late, but we are dealing with a substantial measure which contains important matters.
There are lands in Northern Ireland which have certain restrictions placed upon them. For various reasons, the restrictions are important. Does the order mean that the Lands Tribunal may come into all lands? The explanatory note, which is not part of the order, states:
to modify or extinguish such obligations or restrictions which are unreasonable".
What is reasonable to the Minister could be unreasonable to me, and vice versa. The Minister needs to give us more information.
I know that there are difficulties with certain properties, but, where restrictions apply to certain leases, does the order give power to the Tribunal to waive them even if they are made on moral and religious grounds? No doubt the hon. Gentleman is aware that many restrictions apply to lands in Northern Ireland, having been made on good, moral and religious grounds.

11.58 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: There are two points on the order that gave me some anxiety in studying it with the assistance of the explanatory note. I should like the Minister to direct his attention to them.
The first matter is in article 5 (2). That is the paragraph which deals with the limitation on the length of lease in respect of which the Lands Tribunal will have power to modify or extinguish impediments. I think I am right in saying that hitherto modification, under the corresponding legislation in Great Britain, has not normally been possible with leases anywhere near as short as 21 years, the general theory being that in a period so short it is extremely unlikely that the impediments will have become obsolete or that their intentions will no longer be operative.
It may or may not be right that 21 years should be substituted as a minimum. What worries me is that, having fixed upon a 21-year minimum lease as, so to speak, inviolable in respect of these impediments, the order proceeds without any limitation whatever, without any qualification, to say
Except with the permission of the Lands Tribunal".
If we are to let the tribunal disregard the 21-year limitation, why write the limitation into the article?
If the article had indicated special circumstances or considerations which alone would justify the Lands Tribunal giving its permission, that would make sense; but, since the power entrusted to the Lands Tribunal is completely at large in the wording of the order, we have got rid of the 21-year limitation. So we have written in the limitation and then, in effect, got rid of it, but we have got rid of it with the inconvenience that, in other circumstances, the parties might in advance

have formed a view as to whether the limitation might or might not be removed, whereas now they will assume that the 21-year limit applies unless and until they go before the Lands Tribunal.
I am fortified in my anxiety about this provision by noticing that this is one of those respects in which the drafting of the order differs from the recommendations of the Queen's University working party. The working party proposed the more logical method of permitting the Lands Tribunal anyhow to consider the merits of any case that might come before it. I should have thought that that was better from a practical point of view, and that it was also better from a drafting point of view, since it is inherently objectionable that Parliament should set a limit and, at the same time as it sets a limit, should give an unlimited power to another body to disregard that limit. I hope that what I say about this will be noted and that the Minister will give attention to it.
The next point to which I want to bring the Minister is more serious. It occurs in paragraph (5) of the same article. That paragraph sets out the considerations which the Lands Tribunal is obliged to take into account in deciding whether to modify or extinguish an impediment.
I was brought up with a jolt when I read in the explanatory memorandum on this article that an impediment might be regarded as unreasonable where it was inconsistent with a statutory plan for the development of the area in which the land was situated. That seems to me to be objectionable on the ground that a statutory plan does not in itself authorise the transfer of ownership or extinguishment of rights. For example, there can be a statutory plan which envisages that in certain areas there will be development by public authorities which have rights of vesting, but one does not assume that the land will be vested because that provision is made in the statutory plan. On the contrary, as the statutory plan comes to be carried out a vesting order is duly made, and in the event the matter goes to a hearing and to appeal, so that all the considerations can be brought out at the time in the context of the implementation of the plan.
What worries me—and I shall come to the manner in which it is presented in


the order—is that, in this matter of extinguishment of impediment, the mere existence of a statutory plan for development inconsistent with that impediment could be held to render the impediment unreasonable and permit the Lands Tribunal, with or without compensation, to sweep it away. It seems to me that this is an improper abridgment of the proper proceedings for the acquisition or extinguishment of rights by public bodies in the course of vesting or development.
Having stated my broad objection in that way, I turn first to the report of the Sheridan working party. I notice that the effect of draft Clause 261, which has been substantially departed from at this point in the order, is noticeably different. That draft clause first says that
The Lands Tribunal shall have the power … by order to modify"—
etcetera—
the obligation
on being satisfied of one of two things: either that the obligation has become obsolete or that it secures no practical benefit to the owner and that it unreasonably restricts the owner's use and so on. Two other cases are given in Clause 261 (2) of the draft Bill attached to the Queen's University Report.
It first sets out the basic grounds on being satisfied of which the Lands Tribunal has the power to remove or modify the impediment. Only after it has done that does the report proceed in later subsections to set out considerations which the Lands Tribunal shall take into account. In subsection (4) we find that the Lands Tribunal shall take into account
the development plan (if any) and any declared or ascertainable pattern for the grant or refusal of planning permission in the relevant areas".
Therefore, that pattern, which was recommended by the working party, was, first, to set out the basic grounds which would justify the Lands Tribunal in making an order and then to go on to specify certain factors which it ought—indeed, must—take into account in coming to its conclusion.
If the Minister will now look at paragraph (5) he will find that the effect is quite different. The effect there is to treat all these considerations as of equal weight, not to treat them as matters to be taken into account in determining that

the basic conditions are fulfilled, but to treat them all as considerations of equal weight. For example, it treats as of equal weight
(a) the period at, the circumstances in, and the purposes for which the impediment was created or imposed;
(b) any change in the character of the land or neighbourhood;
It then goes on in (c) to state in different terms:
any public interest in the land, particularly as exemplified by any development plan adopted … for the area in which the land is situated".
It seems to me that the effect of that drafting, as indeed all the more crudely expressed in the explanatory memorandum, is that inconsistency with a statutory plan for the development of the area will be treated per se as justifying the acceptance of the impediment as unreasonable and, thus, the abolition or modification of the impediment by the Lands Tribunal.
The Minister may be advised that this interpretation is too rigorous and that the planning considerations and the development plan will merely be some of the factors on which the Lands Tribunal makes up its mind. What I want to put to the Minister is the proposition that it would be quite wrong for the development plan in itself to be an obligatory basis for the Lands Tribunal to extinguish or modify an impediment. Hitherto, that has happened only in the course of vesting or other procedures when a plan came to be brought into effect.
I want to be assured that the safeguards attendant upon vesting will not be short-circuited by the power conferred upon the Lands Tribunal owing to the drafting of article 5 (5) of the order.

12.10 a.m.

Mr. Dunn: This is the first land law reform. There were 157 recommendations in Professor Sheridan's report. Some were very complicated, and it was thought that the best way to proceed was to implement those that could be applied immediately without too many difficulties. The implementation of the whole report would have had far-reaching consequences, not only for the legal profession but for ordinary buyers and sellers because of the powers that would be vested in the Lands Tribunal.
When article 5 was completed in draft, it contained a heterogeneous list of grounds on which the Tribunal could exercise jurisdiction to modify or extinguish impediments. The need was felt to try to draw up some principle for the Tribunal's guidance, and the common denominator of the various grounds was seen to be unreasonableness.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) asked about the interpretation of "unreasonableness", and I find that difficult to answer. The Lands Tribunal and the courts are well versed in case law and will build up practice and a general structure within categories where there is an impediment that serves to nullify benefits that could be derived from development on behalf of the whole community or individuals. It may be considered that this is unreasonable.
I have no doubt that when applications are made the Tribunal will have to listen to the learned arguments of barristers on both sides before coming to a judgment. I retreat from giving an interpretation because I do not know the answer. This can be decided only by the Tribunal and the courts.
On the question of impediments prohibited by a lease from being made during the first 21 years, the order does not follow the recommendations of the Sheridan working party. The power to modify was claimed and it was proposed that covenants should exist irrespective of the length of the original term of the lease and how much had expired. We had to take account of the fact that commercial leases in Northern Ireland are commonly held for 21 years. Conferring power to modify covenants in such leases could lead to landlords' estate management practices being unreasonably brought into question, and the Tribunal is therefore given power to set aside the first 21 years' restriction in suitable cases.

Mr. Powell: The order does not say "in suitable cases," and it gives no indication of what, in the mind of the legislature, are the sort of circumstances in which the Tribunal should give permission. We are giving it elaborate guidance in other parts of the article, yet here, where it is given blanket powers to override the 21-year limitation, there is no indication of what the factors are.
It is no good the Minister saying that it will depend on the interpretation of the courts. They will interpret the law that we are engaged in making. We should not less realise that it is law because we are merely passing or refusing to pass an order. We are just as much making law as we do in Committee upstairs. We ought, so to speak, to be able to write in a qualification. I suggest that it should have been written in here.

Mr. Dunn: I was answering the question on the interpretation of "unreasonableness". I may not have explained myself sufficiently well. I am advised that the draft order will relate only to suitable cases. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I shall look at the matter again and take advice upon it. He will appreciate that this is a somewhat foreign sphere for me. I shall take advice on the matter and write to him in detail on it. The point to which he has drawn attention will be investigated.
Another question related to other entitlements to benefit of any impediment concerning some of the procedures for modification or extinguishment of those modifications. I assure the House that, as this is the first stage of land law reform, that matter will be seriously studied. The matters that have been drawn to my attention will be investigated by my advisers to see whether there is any contradiction in what we are proposing.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Property (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 18th January, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (REHABILI TATION OF OFFENDERS)

12.16 a.m.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): I beg to move,
That the draft Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 7th February, be approved.
This order will extend to Northern Ireland provisions similar to those of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 which have applied in Great Britain since 1st July 1975. The main purpose of the


order is to enable people who have been convicted of relatively minor offences, and who have not been reconvicted for a specified period of time, to overcome the damaging effects of their criminal records and have their slates cleared.
The order will not provide for rehabilitation from serious offences of the kind committed by terrorists, and I have no doubt that the length of time which must elapse for a conviction to become "spent", together with the exceptions provided to ensure that the full record can be made available in cases of special risk or where the needs of justice require it, will ensure adequate safeguards.
As I have said, the order does no more than extend to Northern Ireland the provisions of similar legislation which is already in the rest of the United Kingdom. I have no doubt that this significant measure of law reform will be welcomed in Northern Ireland also.

12.17 a.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: The Minister of State explained that the order was designed to bring the legislation of Northern Ireland into line with that now prevailing on this side of the water and that he expected it to be welcomed in the Province.
The right hon. Gentleman will recall that in 1974 the Conservative Party was not wildly enthusiastic about, although it did not endeavour to resist, the legislation. In particular, doubts were raised about the exceptions—that is, the categories of person who would have to declare past convictions when applying for employment. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends did not feel that there was a clear logical principle. For example, I understand that doctors and midwives have to declare past convictions, but architects do not. I can see that in this example there are differences. There may be more compelling reasons for disclosure in the first category than in the second. Will the Minister tell us something about the criteria for the categorisation?

12.19 a.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Minister of State said that the order purports to reproduce in Northern Ireland the effect of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 in Great Britain. It

was therefore incumbent upon us to compare the order and the Act with some jealousy. I shall not absolutely guarantee that I have detected every difference between the two, but I have detected, if I might allow myself to say it, one dirty trick which has been, perpetrated in the course of the transmutation of the 1974 Act into Northern Ireland terms.
I invite the Minister to look at the last article, article 11. This provides for the negative procedure to apply to orders made under this order by the Secretary of State. Such orders would, for example, be those referred to in article 6, paragraph (13). If one looks at article 6, paragraph (13), one finds that it is a quite formidable power which the Secretary of State is exercising—to substitute different periods or terms for any of the effective periods or terms or different ages for the effective age.
This order, which really rewrites the law, is a major piece of subordinate legislation. Would you believe it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in the Great Britain Act these orders are subject to the affirmative procedure? I think that that is something worthy of being described as a dirty trick.
We are all familiar with the fact that when we read statutory rules and orders—that is to say, instruments which would have been Statutory Instruments if they had been made by a non-existent legislature in Northern Ireland—the affirmative procedure means negative procedure and the negative procedure means no procedure at all. We are hardened to this. The mere repetition and iteration of it has rendered us more or less insensitive to the outrageous form of legislation by order under the 1974 Act.
But this is not a Northern Ireland order in that sense. It is a United Kingdom Statutory Instrument and it will have a United Kingdom serial number with "NI" and the Northern Ireland serial number in brackets after it. This is a United Kingdom order on all fours with the United Kingdom Act of 1974 applying to Great Britain.
It is monstrous that, under the cover of providing the same rehabilitation in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland, we give the Secretary of State in Great Britain the power subject to affirmative resolution and that we give the Secretary of State that same power in Northern


Ireland subject only to negative resolution. I cannot think that there can possibly be any grounds of convenience or administration that could justify that distinction.
I know perfectly well what happened. When they came, in drafting the order, to the section of the 1974 Act which made the orders—very important orders—subject to affirmative procedure, they said to themselves "Let us knock it out. We are only dealing with Northern Ireland. They are lucky even to get a negative procedure, so we shall take the opportunity of shifting the affirmative procedure out, at any rate for the rehabilitation procedure". For the third time, I say that that is a dirty trick. The mere fact that we have a draft order in front of us really does not justify the Government in getting away with it.
I am prepared to exonerate the Minister of State. I am absolutely certain that in the brief with which his advisers supplied him they did not inform him that the opportunity had been taken for this prestidigitation and substituting of a negative for an affirmative procedure. They allowed him to go to the Box in all innocence and inform the House what he no doubt believed to be true: that the order reproduced the provisions of the 1974 Act in Great Britain. No doubt he now regards the truth as being as outrageous as it appears to me.
We are in a well-known difficulty in dealing with draft orders. If we were in Committee, I am certain that there would be an undertaking to put the matter right on Report. I have no doubt about that, because this is indefensible. Now we want to alter this provision, but we are faced with an order which cannot be amended. Moral one—a retrospective one in this case but a general moral—is that in future where new concepts are to be introduced into the law, such as the rehabilitation of offenders, which was introduced in Great Britain in the 1974 Act, those concepts should be introduced to Northern Ireland by the main legislation at the same time as they are introduced to the rest of the United Kingdom.
If the 1974 Rehabilitation of Offenders Bill, as it then was, had contained a clause saying that orders applying to Great Britain would be subject to affirmative procedure but orders applying to

Northern Ireland would be subject to the negative procedure, it would not have got through. Even if the draftsman, greatly daring, had attempted to introduce it, we may be sure that it would have been dealt with in Committee.
The basic lesson of this outrage—and it is an outrage—is that wherever possible we should legislate by United Kingdom Bill for Northern Ireland and do it in the proper way. The Government should know by now, by experience, that there is no disposition on the part of my hon. Friends and myself, to use legislative procedures for any purpose other than improving the law. That is an exercise in retrospection, of fond regret.
In the case of this order, we do not have the resource that was available to the Minister in dealing with the last order. I congratulate him on his deftness in devising this escape for us. He said that there would be more legislation on the subject coming along; if there was any thing wrong with the order, he would study it and such matters could be taken into account when the next bite was taken at modernising property law in Northern Ireland. We cannot do that here—

Mr. James Molyneaux: Can we not provide the right hon. Gentleman with a similar escape hatch? As I understand it, the Children and Young Persons Act is in need of some reform. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could undertake to carry out a similar operation with respect to that legislation.

Mr. Powell: Governments and Parliaments can do almost anything they want. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman is as shocked by this discovery as we are. He never authorised this departure from the principle of the 1974 Act. There should be no need to go through the whole business of making new proposals. But he could perfectly well re-present this draft with the dirty trick taken out of the tail of it in article 11.
I am asking a great deal of the right hon. Gentleman. I am asking him to take his whole political career in his hands. Before now there have been cases where a junior Minister, if he will forgive me for putting him in that category, has earned a peerage by accepting an amendment or agreeing to a suggestion from the Opposition without authorisation from


higher authority. There was the remarkable example of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury who made a concession on the petrol duty on cigarette lighters in the Finance Act 1929 without permission from the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. Many hon. Members, like myself, are friends and admirers of the second baron—that is to say, the heir to the barony which was created as a result of that decision.
I do not want the right hon. Gentleman, who is so much esteemed in Northern Ireland, to worry. If there were any threat of reprisals being taken against him, Trelawney's men would be as nothing compared with the Ulstermen who would form up in serried ranks around him to protect him against any action which might be taken. My appeal to him, with all that encouragement—I shall give him a little time to think about it by drawing attention to one or two other parts of the order—is to do the straightforward, honest thing. A mistake has been made. Something has been slipped in under his nose without his knowing it. Let him withdraw the order and bring it back in an honest way.
There are two other points. The first relates to the application of rehabilitation to members of the Services. This occurs in article 4, and I refer particularly to article 4(5). Article 4(5) is a very choice example of how we are legislated for in Northern Ireland. The 1974 Act included two provisions—the provisions which are there quoted—with reference to Northern Ireland. Indeed, those two references were the only parts of the 1974 Act which extended to Northern Ireland, but those two provisions of the 1974 Act have not yet been brought into force by the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary has sat back patienitly year after year from 1974 onwards, his pen poised over the order bringing those provisions set out in article 4(5) into effect, until we could pass this order which would add the words
or of the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 ".
When this order—I trust, amended with a new article 11—receives the Royal approval, then and only then will the two provisions of the 1974 Act which extended to Northern Ireland be brought into

effect by order of the English Home Secretary.
It really is rather fun the way in which we manage to legislate for Northern Ireland by first pretending that Northern Ireland is something quite separate to be dealt with differently, then by deciding that the law shall be the same in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and then by bringing in this sort of contorted legislation to produce that result in the most unsatisfactory manner possible.
I come now to my last point, which is in the nature of a conundrum. The conundrum is to be found in article 7, paragraph (6). This deals with what I may for short describe as subsequent convictions and the effect which subsequent convictions are to have upon the rehabilitation process. They tend, on the whole, to delay the rehabilitation process.
Those convictions are in the Great Britain Act limited in the same way as is specified here in respect of Northern Ireland in article 7(6). I draw attention to sub-paragraph (b):
there shall be disregarded…
(b) any conviction by or before a court outside Northern Ireland of an offence"—
and then follow these words—
in respect of conduct which, if it had taken place in Northern Ireland, would not have constituted an offence under the law in force in Northern Ireland.
There is a corresponding provision in the Great Britain Act, but that says
would not have constituted an offence under the law in force in Great Britain.
Let us draw back from this picture for a moment and contemplate the broad position. The broad position applies rehabilitation to convictions by or before a court, including a court outside Great Britain or outside Northern Ireland, as the case may be. I am looking at article 2(3). But in the case of second convictions—posthumous convictions, as it were—an exception is made of convictions in respect of conduct which is not an offence under the law of Great Britain or Northern Ireland, as the case may be.
I want to know about the cases where the law in Northern Ireland and the law in Great Britain do not move pari passu.Are we not to have the extraordinary position under the Great Britain Act that a conviction for an offence in Great Britain, a secondary conviction, would not be taken into account whereas


a secondary conviction in Northern Ireland for that offence would be taken into account? That is the more anomalous since the procedure itself takes no account of whether the conviction is secured in the country concerned or somewhere else.
I could have understood if the basis of rehabilitation were conviction in that part of the kingdom to which the legislation applied. I could understand then that one said that one would ignore convictions for offences which were not offences under the law of that part of the United Kingdom. But that is not what we are doing. We say that the original offences for the original rehabilitation procedure can be offences of which a person is convicted in a court anywhere, but then we say in the secondary procedure that they must be offences which are not offences under the law of the particular part of the United Kingdom.
In short, I think that we have got ourselves tripped up with the attempt to legislate for the United Kingdom in two parts by a sort of penny-farthing method, the big wheel being the Act of Parliament and the little wheel being the Northern Ireland order. This crossing over, this chiasmus, of the provisions for the subsequent convictions is an illustration yet again of the difficulties into which we have got ourselves.
Again, the moral is, wherever possible in the future, please let us legislate by the proper legislative process. Let us legislate for the whole of the United Kingdom, if that is our intention, since the whole of the United Kingdom is represented in the House, and, if the underlying law of different parts of the United Kingdom is different, as it sometimes is in Wales or Scotland, let us have application clauses or definition clauses which would do the job without difficulty.

12.41 a.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The people of Northern Ireland will be greatly indebted to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) for pointing out this dirty trick—one of many dirty tricks which have been played on the people of Northern Ireland. Subordinate legislation is important, because more and more the lives of the people of Northern Ireland are ruled by such legislation,

coming from a civil servant drawing up an order with clauses giving a Minister total power.
If a subordinate order gives the right to substitute different periods or terms for those mentioned in the order, if by subordinate order, not subject to affirmative resolution, a different age is to be substituted, the order will be made into something quite different from what anyone would have thought from a first reading.
The Minister should take the order back and at least give us the same treatment. We are always told that we are under benevolent direct rule, with all the privileges of the United Kingdom. So let us have this privilege. Ministers should remember the words of the right hon. Member for Down, South, which have been spoken many times from this Bench: legislation should be for the whole United Kingdom, brought in by means of a Bill in the normal legislative process.
If the law is different in various parts of the United Kingdom, surely Northern Ireland can be treated like any other part. Whether or not the Minister is afraid of being buried in another place, he should be prepared, like the good Socialist he professes to be, to forget about it and say that the people of Northern Ireland should have the same rights as those in every other part of the United Kingdom.

12.44 a.m.

Mr. Concannon: I have never minded being twitted, but the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) knows that the order is a standard order under the 1974 Act. The exemptions order, like all other Northern Ireland subordinate legislation, will be negative resolution. I hate to disappoint him, but there is no dirty trick or sleight of hand.
This is not the time to review the constitutional arrangements for Northern Ireland legislation. The right hon. Gentleman has certainly made his point, however, and I should like to see the day when legislation is made for the United Kingdom as a whole. But while we have the 1974 Act this is the only way in which we can pursue the orders.

Mr. Powell: I am being entirely serious. Is the Minister really saying that it would not have been possible in the terms of the order for article 11 to import an


affirmative order? That surely is an impossible statement. The 1974 Act cannot oblige these Statutory Instruments to contain only the negative procedure. Otherwise, we would not need to have article 11 in the order at all. With great respect, I cannot believe that article 11 could not, if it had been so desired, have provided an affirmative procedure.

Mr. Concannon: This is one of the standard ways in which we have been proceeding. If that is not so, I shall have to take responsibility. I would not pass the responsibility to anyone else in my Department, but I am led to believe that that is the procedure. This is the standard order made under the Act. There is no sleight of hand. There is no dirty tricks brigade. Nothing is further from my mind.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the Minister saying that in all the other parity legislation where the Great Britain legislation has provided for the affirmative procedure the negative procedure has been inserted in the case of Northern Ireland? If so, we are trebly indebted to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) for his vigilance on this occasion, because it seems that Parliament has been led up a very dark avenue.

Mr. Powell: It surely cannot be intended by the House that in the same legislation, which will hereafter be the same in all parts of the United Kingdom, the application in Great Britain should be by affirmative procedure and in Northern Ireland by negative procedure.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Article 11 says:
Orders made under this Order by the Secretary of State except an order made under Article 1.
Is the Minister saying that an order made under article I must have an affirmative resolution, or is it coming in without any resolution, whereas a negative resolution must be made on any order made under this order? Surely the Minister knows that this order can be made subject to affirmative resolution.

Mr. Concannon: We are applying to this order the normal practice that we have applied under the 1974 Act. So far as I am aware, there is no compulsion so to legislate, but I cannot speak of every order.
If the House wants to make heavy weather of this matter, it can. I certainly shall not argue about it at 10 minutes to one o'clock in the morning. I shall seek to withdraw the order and let it come before the House again when we have sorted the matter out.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

NORTHERN IRELAND (SEXUAL OFFENCES)

12.50 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James A. Dunn): I beg to move,
That the draft Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.
The order will extend to Northern Ireland the provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 and, like that Act, embodies many of the recommendations of the advisory group on the law of rape chaired by Mrs. Justice Heilbron which reported in 1975. The purpose of the order is accordingly to clarify and modify the law concerning rape in Northern Ireland: it deals with the definition of both rape and a rape offence, with the sort of evidence which should be admissible in court proceedings and with the provision of anonymity for both complainants and defendants.
Article 3 of the order provides a statutory definition of rape which emphasises that lack of consent—not violence—is the main defining characteristic of rape. The advisory group considered that legislation should contain a declaratory provision which simply defines, and does not modify the law, owing to the existence of common misunderstandings about the offence of rape which it was essential to remove. This recommendation was given effect in Section 1 of the 1976 Act. For instance, the advisory group found that there was a widespread but none the less false assumption that marks or other evidence of violence were necessary before rape could be proved. Furthermore, the order requires a jury not only to consider whether the man believed the woman to be consenting but also whether that belief was reasonable.
Articles 4 and 5 of the order seek to reduce the number of occasions on which


the defence may introduce evidence about a woman's sexual history with men other than the accused. The purpose of this provision is to limit hurtful and distressing probing into a woman's private life unless it is strictly necessary. The sexual history of the complainant with the accused is not, however, restricted in a similar manner since it may well be relevant to the case.
It is, however, important to bear in mind that, while giving added protection to women in rape cases, we must do nothing to prejudice the right of the defendant to a full and fair trial. For this reason, the order allows the judge discretion to permit the introduction of evidence about the woman's sexual history where it would be unfair to the defendant to exclude it.
Article 6 provides that, exceptional circumstances apart, complainants shall be anonymous in written publications and in broadcasts about trials for rape offences. A defendant may apply for the restrictions to be lifted, but permission would be given only if he could prove that otherwise his defence would be prejudiced or that publicity was required in order to induce possible witnesses at the trial to come forward.
Any form of limitation on freedom of reporting legal proceedings is, of course, a difficult and sensitive matter. I am satisfied, however, that the nature of rape offences makes some limitation on publicity both necessary and desirable. A woman who is a victim of rape may well be expected to be daunted by the prospect of publicity even to the extent of failing to report the assault to the police. In these circumstances, and given the private and intimate nature of the evidence likely to be required at the trial, I am convinced that anonymity for the complainant is necessary.
Protection for the defendant is, however, also provided by article 8 of the order which states that, exceptional circumstances apart, the name of the defendant shall not be reported unless and until he has been convicted.
The order provides for a valuable and desirable and, indeed, humane extension of existing criminal law in England and Wales to Northern Ireland, and I commend it to the House for approval.

12.54 a.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I wonder whether the Minister can tell us what demand there has been in Northern Ireland for this measure and from which quarter. However, since the purpose of the order is to bring the legislation of Northern Ireland into line with that of England and Wales, we do not oppose it, although when the legislation for England and Wales was passing through the House my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), speaking for the official Opposition, said that the Opposition's approach to the Bill could be summed up as unenthusiastic.
The argument which underlies this legislation is not so much on one side as at first sight it might appear. On Clause 4 of the Bill, which was to give defendants in rape cases the cloak of anonymity, my hon. Friend the Member for Burton said that
… many of us would rather that there was no protection for either party.
Speaking for himself and for a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends, he came to the conclusion that
… it is doubtful whether, if the public fully understood all the parts of the Bill, it would wholly like all the fetters being placed upon the accused, which may well make the conviction of an innocent man more likely."—[Official Report, 15th October 1976; Vol. 917, c. 888–9.]
I wish not to pronounce on that argument but to reiterate that the argument is not all on one side. I wonder what demand there is for this legislation in the Province, although, as a general principle, we are anxious that the law in Northern Ireland should be in line with that of England and Wales.

12.56 a.m.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: Because this order is intended to effect parity, we on this Bench welcome it. In preparing for the debate, I looked up some of the speeches made on this subject during the passage of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act. One fact which registered very strongly with me was that each day there are probably two cases of rape, or near-rape, which are not brought to the attention of the authorities. This is because the ladies concerned think that a certain stigma might remain attached to them, or even because of a threat to their persons, or because of the difficulty of proving that


they were not at all consenting to a relationship. Whatever causes that kind of difficulty, the fact that so many cases are not brought to the attention of the police necessitates a change in the law.
The Act also did a great service to the community in that it tried to redefine the meaning of the term "rape". I understand that the 1956 Act was not very clear or specific about it. Thus, this order, like the Act, does great service in that it redefines the meaning of "rape" as well as protects the women of our community.
Another helpful aspect is that the private life of a lady prior to the incident will be protected—a very wise provision. It has been argued that there are women whose nature of employment or pursuit almost invites some kind of relationship. Be that as it may, it is the exception and not the rule. If the private lives of individuals can be protected—and would have been protected, apart from this dreadful incident of rape—I think the order does a great service to the community by so protecting that privacy and confidentiality. That is the more evident in regard to anonymity. I am in total agreement with article 6, which deals with anonymity.
Having said that, I am glad that in the original amending Bill certain suggestions were resisted. I am glad that the Government resisted the temptation to include rape within marriage. I can certainly believe that it is possible to have lust within marriage but I cannot see how there can be rape within marriage.
I am also very glad that the Government were disposed to add a new clause protecting the identity or observing the anonymity of the defendant. I know that there are those who disagree and that there are those who are involved in the legal profession in Northern Ireland who would argue that a defendant in a rape case in many instances is no different from a defendant in any other kind of criminal case. Bearing in mind that very few women will bring a case such as this to court unless it is an authentic case, how can a defendant in this sort of case be said to deserve preferential treatment and to have his identity concealed?
I appreciate the strength of the argument which has been advanced by some members of the legal profession in North-

ern Ireland, but, at the same time, the ongoing ramifications and consequences of being involved in a kind of sexual act are such that I would tend to come down on the side of agreement with the anonymity of defendants in a rape case.
I shall not detain the House by going through the order article by article. Article 3 obviously gives us a restatement of the law concerning rape, and that is very valuable. Article 4 removes the possibility of mud slinging in the court where a defendant could possibly try to drag from the background all kinds of irrelevancies. Anything that reduces mud slinging to a minimum must surely be encouraged by us. Article 7 deals with fines for the contravention of the provision in respect of anonymity. This is also important.
On the whole, I welcome the order and would certainly be happy to see it applied to Northern Ireland as it now stands.

1.4 a.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) has reminded the House, the Great Britain Act which the order reproduces for Northern Ireland arose out of a Private Member's Bill. While, therefore, I am entirely in agreement with my hon. Friend and my colleagues in welcoming the uniformity which the order will produce in the law of the United Kingdom in this respect, there is an important consideration involved in what we are doing. I think it would not be right for that consideration not to be mentioned, since it will become or could become a subject of acute controversy in the context of other Northern Ireland legislation which may—although I hope it will not—be presented to the House later in this session. The difficulty is that a Bill for Great Britain is presented to the House by a private Member and is passed as a Private Member's Bill without the Whips being on and without the Government necessarily taking sides in the matter, and certainly without the Government accepting responsibility for that legislation. It thus finds its way on to the statute book but applies only to Great Britain.
We then decide—I think that on this we are agreed—that that measure should apply to the remainder of the United Kingdom, namely, to Northern Ireland.
However, there is no procedure for private Bill legislation for Northern Ireland by order, so to speak. Instead, the Government take responsibility not merely for the proposition that the law should be uniform in all parts of the United Kingdom but for the content of the law itself. Thus what becomes law in Great Britain without Government responsibility as a consequence of private Member initiative is applied—I was about to say "imposed" but I stopped myself—to Northern Ireland on Government responsibility as a Government Act with the Whips on.
It so happens that in this instance there is no problem because we welcome this measure and regard it as uncontroversial, but clearly there would be a grave problem if the procedure by order were used to apply to Northern Ireland law that had been made in Great Britain by a controversial Private Member's Bill, the Whips being off and the Government being neutral, for we would have the situation that in Great Britain the Government had no view about the law but immediately the same law was to be applied in Northern Ireland the Government said "Yes. That is Government policy. We shall push it through with the powers that Governments have for securing their legislation".
I do not wish to be tedious, but we find that the fundamental proposition about legislation is constantly being illuminated from different angles as we consider these successive orders. There is in this Session a Private Member's Bill that was introduced by the hon. Member for Bexley-heath (Mr. Townsend). My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) participated on Second Reading and supported the Bill's Second Reading with considerable enthusiasm. The correct thing to do is to ensure that that is not a Great Britain Private Member's Bill but a United Kingdom Private Member's Bill. I am glad that as a result of the representations that my hon. Friend made, the sponsor has agreed to extend the Bill to the whole of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: I hesitate to correct the right hon. Gentleman, but I believe that that Bill does not apply to Scotland.

Mr. Powell: That may be. I can understand that in these matters, where

the law of Scotland is often radically different from that of England and Wales. I should have said England and Wales rather than Great Britain. However, since the same point does not apply to the law in Northern Ireland, my argument—the hon. Gentleman would accept this—is unaffected.
We shall get into difficulties if we do not legislate for Northern Ireland, even when the legislation is private legislation, in the same Acts of Parliament as those in which we legislate, as the case may be, for Great Britain or for England and Wales. Fortunately in this instance it does not matter, but this must not be a precedent for cases in which it does matter and in which grave offence would be given to the people of Northern Ireland when they realised that something that could be enacted on this side of the water only as a matter in which the Government were neutral, is imposed in Northern Ireland as a matter of Government policy.

Mr. Dunn: The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) asked where the demand came from for this change. I can answer him in two parts. First, I can tell him and the House that there has been an upward trend in the number of rape offences known to the police. The number rose from 17 in 1973 to 65 in 1976—and that ignores the point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford), of which we are aware, that we know, from information that filters back when it is too late to proceed with any investigation and subsequent charge, that the total number of offences far exceeds the number of cases in which charges are made.
Because the organisations concerned have been making their views known to us, and because several rather severe cases have come to our notice through the courts and the media—both television and the newspapers—we were prompted to propose a change in the law of rape, and we were fortunate in that a Private Member's Bill in 1976 gave guidelines and we were ably to study the response of the majority of hon. Members, which was very helpful to us.
I think that the hon. Member for Belfast, South put his finger on the difficulty when he said that there is a great area of sensitivity, but there is also a great area of distress for those involved, and the


balance is always difficult. One always wants to protect the female from any examination, but at the same time one has to recall the number of cases of rape that have been before the courts only to be dismissed on the basis of evidence that showed that the charges were false from the moment they were made. It is a sensitive balance in the order. We say that only when conviction has been decided by the court shall the name of the person accused of rape be available for general publication.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) once again leads me on to the path about the Northern Ireland statue book. The right hon. Gentleman normally listens to me as intently as I listen to him. We have always taken the view that we should try to protect the Northern Ireland statute book in such a way as to ensure that when and if a devolved Administration or some form of devolved government returns to Northern Ireland the statute book will be there for it to inherit, in much the same way as we did when we took over responsibility for the Province.
I know the right hon. Gentleman's views about integration, and I do not wish to quarrel with him on that score. At the same time, I do not wholly agree with him that this is the best method of dealing with the problem of social legislation for Northern Ireland. It is always difficult to decide just how much legislation the Government of the day should introduce on Northern Ireland affairs. We have to take account of the people and the way in which they have generally responded, and also their traditions and culture, which may be different from that in other parts of the United Kingdom. I hesitate to suggest that in some respects social law reform in Northern Ireland would be a very difficult path to take if we simply accepted the measurement that what was applicable in the majority of the United Kingdom should automatically apply to Northern Ireland.
The right hon. Gentleman and others will know that the Standing Committee on Human Rights has often been a guiding factor in recommending, after full consultation with the community, what law reform could be proposed for the Province. I understand that from time to time even those recommendations can

be controversial. But that is the measure by which we then respond.
The only protection that I can give to the right hon. Member for Down, South, and to other hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies is that once any proposed law reform is engendered it is generally put in draft outline and submitted for extensive consultation. A number are now going for the three-month consultative period extended beyond that normally applicable. That is the only way in which we can do it.
In many ways we as a Government go in the same direction as the House would normally wish to go. We accept that in many cases these matters are dealt with by Private Members' legislation. But at the end of the day we still have a responsibility not to stand back when reforms are required. The challenge can be made that we ought not to proceed with legislation without getting the same sort of procedure operative in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. That is a great difficulty. What we are attempting to do is to take account of the need for reform and at the same time to keep the Northern Ireland statute book protected. This is a matter of some disagreement among us and I am afraid that I cannot resolve it tonight. However, I welcome the general expression of support that has been made across the Chamber.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (FIREARMS)

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): Motion No. 7. Mr Farr.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James A. Dunn): With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the order is down in the name of the Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to look at the Order Paper he will see that the list of names does not appear to contain that of any member of the Government.

Mr. Dunn: May I draw your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the motion moved at 10 o'clock? You will see that it is in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The 10 o'clock motion gives power for the business set out therein to be dealt with at an hour after 10 o'clock. Motion No. 7 does not contain the name of any Government member.

1.18 a.m.

Mr. John Fan: I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Firearms (Variation of Fees) Order (Northern Ireland) 1977 (S.R. &amp; O. (N.I.) 1977, No. 360), dated 15th December 1977, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th December 1977.
Tonight I am moving a take-note motion only which will give hon. Members a chance to ask some questions and the Minister a chance to answer them. I should point out that the original motion urged the withdrawal of this order. The concern felt by hon. Members can be illustrated by the fact that 63 or 64 put their names to that motion. I cannot recall when a recent motion on Northern Ireland attracted as much support as that.
For a moment or two I shall try to voice some of the concern that had been expressed to me. What shocked those people from Northern Ireland who have been in communication with me is the savagery of the increases. That is what takes their breath away. The five variations spelt out in Document No. 360 of 1977 show no increases of less than 40 per cent. The highest increase is 175 per cent and the average of the five increases is 86 per cent.
It is three years since the fees specified in paragraph 2(1)(a), (b) and (c) were last increased. The average increase in these three fees alone is 60 per cent, over the three-year life of the licence or 20 per cent, a year. In 1970, the fee for 2(1)(a), the grant of a licence, was £2·10, for 2(1)(b), a renewal, £1.05 and for 2(1)(c), a variation, £1·05. The new rates are £14, £8.50 and £8.50 respectively and it can be seen that the fee for the grant of a licence has increased by just under 600 per cent, and the fees for renewal and variation have gone up by just over 700 per cent.
With these startling figures in mind, can it be wondered that the legal holders

of firearms in Northern Ireland—there are about 106,000 legally held weapons in the Province—are becoming extremely restive? They are urged by the Government to accept a 10 per cent, norm on wage increases yet are expected to tolerate firearm fees increases averaging nearly 100 per cent, a year.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) for the series of penetrating Questions that he asked on this subject in recent weeks. It is entirely due to the painstaking nature of his Questions and the illuminating replies that he received that we can see that in every third year in Northern Ireland, twice the normal number of licences fall due for renewal—giving double receipts. The last abnormal year was 1975, when 32,000 licences were renewed, followed by 15,000 in 1976 and 13,000 in 1977. The next abnormal year will be 1978 and, at the old rates, the salaries of the 35 staff employed full time on this work would have been handsomely covered.
My first question is whether account was taken of the fact that the number of renewals falling due this year will be twice the level of a normal year—with a consequent increase in income. If so, why could the order not have been postponed for 12 months?
Secondly, and more important, most of the representations that I have received complain about the lack of consultation on the order. Surely it must be in the interests of good government anywhere, but particularly in Northern Ireland, to establish a liaison between the Government and the law-abiding tens of thousands who legally possess firearms.
Why cannot a standing advisory committee on firearms be established in Northern Ireland to consider such proposals and other matters relating to the not unimportant subject of firearms control? I have made this suggestion before without receiving agreement and I have also suggested, with a view to limiting the size of increases, a certificate life of five or six years. That would halve at a stroke the work involved in the issue, renewal and variation of certificates.
If a standing advisory committee on firearms were introduced in Northern Ireland, one of its first tasks would be to look at the optimum certificate life


and to make recommendations. A standing advisory committee would also have represented on it, apart from representatives of the Northern Ireland Office, the police, the judiciary and members from the Joint Shooting Committee of Northern Ireland, which represents all users of firearms in the Province. I should have thought that, apart from its establishment being a useful exercise in good will, its work would be of great value and help to the Secretary of State. For instance, matters relating to the safe custody of legally held firearms in the home and the need to ensure that legal owners appreciate their responsibility could be discussed there.
Finally, from what has been represented to me and from correspondence that I have had, there is a fear that, unless some form of consultation takes place on increases in future and unless a consultative body of some type is established—when we had a debate on this matter three years ago I was given an assurance from the Government Front Bench that this issue would be looked into—and if increases continue to occur and to escalate without prior rather than subsequent discussion, as is the case tonight, the result could be to encourage the holding and use of non-registered illicit weapons, which the Opposition do not wish to see brought about.

1.27 a.m.

Mr. Wm. Ross: This is not the hour at which I wish to debate a matter which strikes fairly deeply into the roots of our country life. This matter, which is of greater importance than is generally realised, concerns the right or the duty in bygone years of men to have firearms in their homes. It is rooted deep in the common law of this nation. This right has been eroded—in my view wrongly—by Parliament since the early years of this century.
There are varying views on the rights of men and women to have weapons. These views vary greatly from one part of the English speaking world to the other. I trust that the Chair will excuse me if I appear to be drifting from the order, but I am not. Sometimes most extreme views are put forward, especially in the United States of America, on the rights of people to keep and to bear arms. Also in that same land there is direct

opposition to the right to have any weapons in the home in private ownership.
I believe that we could with great profit have an in depth debate on this whole subject of firearms control. Indeed, the whole area is one in which measures have been taken in the past without the necessary investigation to determine the real need not only of Ireland but of England. Scotland and Wales. I believe that, under pressures from outside bodies, which perhaps knew nothing about sporting facilities in this country or the wishes of people to own firearms, the Government have taken action on those pressures as a sop to avoid taking action on other matters. That should not be allowed to happen, because this is a fundamental right which has been eroded. Often the supposed inquiry, which was meant to be cured by legislation, continued on its way after the legislation was passed just as blithely as it did before.
There is so much that I could say about this matter, but I shall not go into it now. Tonight I simply seek to show that the increases that are sought are unreasonable and that the argument to support these increases are specious and cannot be maintained in logic. The reason given is the rise in the cost of processing applications and renewals.
I tabled a series of parliamentary Questions and I shall quote from a few of them. The first Question that I asked was about the number of discussions that took place. The Answer was,
None, since the fees are levied solely to cover costs.
—Gold help us—
The Department of Prices and Consumer Protection was consulted and accepted the need for the increase.
When I asked how many persons, civilian and police were engaged full time on the applications for, issue of and the renewal of firearms certificates now and five years ago, I was told that 30 civilian staff, one superintendent, one chief inspector, one inspector, one sergeant and one constable were engaged full-time on these duties at RUC headquarters and at divisional level on this, including members of the special intelligence branch, who are also engaged in the work. I was told that the information for 1973 was not available because


firearm administration had not then been reorganised.
I asked what was the income from fees in the last five years. I was told:
Fees received from firearm certificates and permits in each of the last five financial years were as follows:

£


1972–73
…
…
…
49,867


1973–74
…
…
…
27,488


1974–75
…
…
…
17,227


1975–76
…
…
…
260,449


1976–77
…
…
…
122,148"

[Official Report, 20th January 1978; Vol. 942, c. 393–4.]

Perhaps I should tell my hon. Friend that the reason for the one big year and the two small years was that the firearms certificates used to last for five years and the period was reduced to three years. Now figures are levelling out as people change their guns. Eventually, I suppose it will equalise.

Later I asked the Secretary of State
how many persons, civilian and police, giving ranks and grades, together with the annual salaries payable to those ranks and grades at each date specified, were engaged full-time on the applications for, issue of, and the renewal of firearms certificates at 1st January 1974, 1st January 1975, 1st January 1976, 1st January 1977 and 1st January 1978."—[Official Report, 3rd February 1978; Vol. 943, c. 342.]

I received some astonishing information. I discovered that in the year 1976 a superintendent and an inspector were employed at salaries of £6,710 and £4,400 and that two clerks disappeared who were employed apparently to do the same work and who were earning just over £2,000. At the same time, between the years 1974 and 1978 the number of clerical assistants rose from 12 to 21—an increase of nine—and the number of typists rose from two to three.

That was bad enough. But then I asked how many firearms certificates had been issued and renewed in each of the last five years. I wish that I had asked for information about more years. However, I was told in a Written Answer of 20th January 1978 that in 1973, 1974 and 1975 the total number of firearms certificates were 76,404 and for 1975, 1976 and 1977 the number was 77,171. In fact, 1975 is used twice, but any three-year cycle will do.

There was this great increase in staff to deal with the same number of certificates. I would like to know why this

was so. I would like an explanation of how this came about. What exactly is the staff doing? If members of staff are fully employed during the "big" year, what on earth are they doing in the other two years?

I started asking some more questions about the old system. I discovered that very few people were employed. It was done at what was the old county level. Let no one claim that the RUC did not know how many guns were in the country or who owned them. Certainly whenever mine fell due for relicensing the RUC were round looking for the certificate. They knew what I had. Now, as well as full-time staff at headquarters, there is apparent duplication of the work at divisional level.

I asked another Question. I was told that a breakdown of costings relating to pay and allowances for the financial year 1976–77 was as follows:

"RUC headquarters … £72,000"
"Divisional costs … £76,000
"Senior staff … £15,000"

—where on earth did they come in?—

"Overtime … £7,000
"Allowances … £28,000

"—what were they for?—

"Police Authority staff"

—above all things—
£2,000."—[Official Report, 2nd February 1978; Vol. 93, c. 329.]

I would like an explanation of those figures.

I asked for costings of the financial years 1974–75 and 1976–77 and was given figures for pay, including overtime and allowances which ranged from £92,000 to £200,000. For superannuation and national insurance I was given figures ranging from £18,000 to £50,000 and for Accommodation and the rest I was given figures of £25,000 and £30,000. There were totals of £135,000 and £300,000. I was told that the increase was so large because the 1974–75 figures were not strictly comparable since overtime and certain allowances were not included in the earlier figures.

There is only one conclusion to be drawn from the numbers of staff and the cost related to the number of certificates. The only conclusion is that someone in police headquarters has been building a nice empire to look after firearms certificates. We are all paying for this, and we do not like it.

I do not question the necessity to maintain strict control over the whereabouts of guns. I do not question the ballistics tests, which I am sure are useful to the RUC when it is investigating firearms crimes, especially crimes involving stolen weapons. We have to take the terrorist factor into account in Northern Ireland. I just want to know why the Government are so anxious to hit the law-abiding citizen just because there are criminals at large. If there are criminals at large, it is the duty of the Government to deal with these evil men, net penalise the law-abiding citizen.

The basic problem is not that guns are dangerous or evil weapons. It is that there are dangerous and evil men. If they want a weapon they will get it. Not many people in Northern Ireland have had Armalite rifles or M60 machine guns stolen. But the IRA does not appear to be short of these. Terrorists always get guns. This has been so in Ireland for some time, since the 1920s and one thing that is clear from terrorist and guerilla activity round the world is that weapons of all descriptions are always available to the terrorist.

Therefore, although guns have been stolen and used by terrorists, the order and present legislation will not stop the terrorists from getting more. It will not stop the poacher from poaching with his legally held gun if he wants to. It will not stop the cowboy from going shooting here, there and everywhere. The only thing that will stop him is the police not granting him a certificate. Heaven knows, we have trouble enough with that, those of us who have dealings with Northern Ireland.

I have nothing but contempt for those who act irresponsibly with weapons, be they sportsmen or others. I appreciate the nature of guns and understand how dangerous they can be, but I do not like the idea of the law-abiding citizen being penalised in this way.

The only people who will be badly hurt by this order are farmers who keep guns for the protection of stock and who perhaps go shooting on Boxing Day. Thousands of farmers in Northern Ireland do this. The gun sits in the cupboard in the corner for the rest of the year, and a box of cartridges last for four or five years. If a farmer shoots a

rabbit in a hedge occasionally, he thinks that he is doing well. I am talking not about the serious sportsman but about the man who has possibly inherited a gun, who has it as a work tool or who takes an occasional shot with it.

Despite all that I have said to date, I do not make that the main point of my argument against the order. The point I wish to make against the order is that the argument used to make gun holders pay for the whole apparatus of gun control is founded upon an untruth. The untruth is simply that this apparatus is a service for the gunholder. It is nothing of the sort. The argument that it is a service for the gun holder and not part of normal police work is not true.

I quote in support of this aspect of my argument some other documents. The first is to Major Brownlow, whom the Minister will know, and is signed by a civil servant who was, I believe, in charge of that aspect of Government work. Early in the letter it says:
I must make it clear at the outset that fees are levied only to cover administrative costs …
The increased costs must be recovered from those persons for whom the service is provided ".

Further down the letter draws attention to the fact that
police investigation procedures following application for a shot gun certificate in Great Britain are minimal
and that in Northern Ireland they are very much much more detailed.

The importance of this letter is the claim that this a service for the persons concerned. This is an official letter. I feel sure that the Department would wish to stand by it.

In February I asked:
what is considered to be the normal range of police duties in regard to firearms legislation affecting firearms dealers and applicants, respectively".

I was told:
It is for the Chief Constable to determine the police work necessary to fulfil his responsibilities under the Firearms Act (Northern Ireland) 1969.
I am informed that this includes"—

this is apparently normal police work—
the receipt and careful assessment of applications; consideration of the adequacy of the security arrangements for the storage of the firearms; where appropriate the inspection of premises and records; and the preparation and


issue of appropriate certificates". [Official Report, 15th February 1978, Vol. 944, c. 284.]

I also asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
whether the provision of firearms certificates is a service to the owners of firearms or to enable the police to keep track of fire arms amongst the general public in Northern Ireland".

I confess that I did not expect this question to be answered, but is was, in these words:
The purpose of firearms certificates, issued under the relevant legislation, is to protect the community"—
I thought that that was the function of the police—
by ensuring that the privilege"—
Here we find that since the early days of the century what was then considered to be the right to have a firearm has now been converted by slow degrees into a privilege to have a firearm. I cannot accept that, because I believe that any reasonable man should have a right to a gun. I see no reason to deny that right. I believe it to be foolish and wrong to deny it.

The answer tells us that
The privilege of possessing authorised firearms is only extended to persons who have good reason to hold them, and will do so without danger to public safety or to the peace."— [Official Report, 16th January, 1978; Vol. 942, c.82.]
We are told that it is the duty of the police to protect the community, and they do this by means of the present firearms legislation.

In short, I believe that firearms control is and always should be a normal part of police work. It cannot reasonably be seen as anything else, and any attempt to tell people that it is anything else is merely a ploy to set firearms holders apart so that they can be got at by their being made a bit different from the rest of the community. If one makes people a wee bit different, they can be attacked. I believe that this is part of an attempt to cut down the number of firearms and the number of firearms owners.

There may have been historical reasons for this system, but one certainly is that it is not a service to help the gun owner. It is to help the police if guns are misused. Gun owners do not mind that, but why on earth should they be crucified?

There are several services outside normal police duties provided by the RUG For example, there are commercial services such as repair of radio sets in police workshops. That is treated as a commercial transaction, paid for by those who use it. There are the reports of road accidents which the police prepare and for which a person pays if he applies for a copy. I refer here to cases in which there will be claims for damages or compensation. If the police themselves prosecute for dangerous or careless driving or something else, no one has to pay for the report of the accident, but that other service of providing reports is a purely commercial service which is available to the public on payment. It is provided because there has to be evidence in a court of law which only the police can supply.

I come next to a curious responsibility which is put upon the police, that is, responsibility for the control of dogs. We talked about dogs in another context earlier, but there is a considerable responsibility laid upon the police in respect of dogs. If I may say so, the police act in a rather curious way, because they do not do anything with dogs. They pay the Ulster secretary for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to look after the dogs for them. In 1974–75 they paid £27,500, in 1975–76 they paid £33,000, and in 1976–77 they paid £40,000.

Thus, we have two commercial transactions which are carried out by the police and for which they are paid, we have a third duty laid upon the police and they pay somebody else to do it for them, and now we have another responsibility laid upon the police—to look after firearms—and what do they do about that? They make the owners of firearms pay for it. I cannot understand how anyone can in logic say that that is fair or reasonable.

I could carry on a long time with this argument, going into the highways and byways, but I hope that I have said enough to make the gun owners' case. It is time that the police authority and the police in Northern Ireland—and, indeed, perhaps more widely—accepted the responsibility which Parliament has laid upon them, which is to keep track of the guns as part of their normal duties to the community, and not to fester on the backs of the law-abiding.

Firearms control has never been thoroughly investigated. It should be investigated impartially, openly and in depth. We should start from the beginning, from a solid foundation and not from the arguments used in 1903, when it all began. We should try to come to reasonable conclusions and not just accept what was decided before.

Our basic thinking—I believe I speak for all hon. Members—is shaped by the circumstances we find on reaching this place. Many hon. Members would benefit from a study of the excellent books on firearms control in the Library. They would then understand the background. They would then want to ensure that the firearms owner is not victimised and that the police do their duty as they should.

1.52 a.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: There are two ways to take from the general public something that they want—to outlaw it or to make its cost prohibitive. This order is an attempt to take legally held firearms from people in Northern Ireland. There is a saying in the United States—if the legally held guns were taken away, only the outlaws would have weapons.
A study of the subject in Northern Ireland, I believe, will prove that acts of terrorism are not being performed with legal weapons. No one will get a licence for a machine gun or similar weapon.
I represent a rural constituency, so I know that the holding of ·22 rifles runs deep among the farming community, who use them to keep down vermin. That benefits rural and urban communities. However, the Government apparently want to make this a costly job for them to do. Instead of being regarded as benefactors, they are looked on as people to be discriminated against.
There is much feeling against this legislation in rural districts. We have heard a great deal about parity of legislation. I do not see why, if I live in Great Britain, I pay £5 for a licence and £4 for a renewal, while in Northern Ireland, under the order, the fees will be £14 and £8·50 respectively. Why is that? What happens when one crosses the Irish Sea?
Incomes in Northern Ireland are much lower than in the rest of the United Kingdom. With the cost of living going

up and wages remaining practically static in Northern Ireland, people there are much less well-off than in the United Kingdom. The Government should be bringing the price down instead of putting it up if they were acting logically. Instead, there is an attempt to take away guns by putting up the price of the certificates.
I know that there is a general feeling in the Labour Party that the best thing for Northern Ireland would be to have no legal guns. I remember hearing the previous Prime Minister leading off in a great speech, saying that the solution to the whole terrorist problem was to bring in all the guns. The guns that he wanted brought in would not have been brought in, for the terrorists would not do it. It would be the law-abiding citizens who would hand in their weapons, not those engaged in violence.
I remember sitting with the predecessor of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) when we had previous legislation on the matter. He said that he would take every gun from every farmer in Northern Ireland, and I told him "You will not last long in Northern Ireland." When he investigated the subject he found that he was proposing an impossibility.
I also remember going with other Members of this House and of the Convention to various police stations and serving notice on the superintendents that our constituents would not be handing in their guns that they had held legally for years. We said that as citizens of the United Kingdom they were entitled to hold them. Because of that strong resistance the Government gave way.
Now we have this subtle variation of fees order that will put up the fee. Many people in Northern Ireland have guns handed down from generation to generation. Many old-age pensioners have made representations to me. They go out on Boxing Day, a great shooting day in Northern Ireland, and enjoy themselves. Now that little bit of pleasure is being taken away from them because in the eventide of their lives they cannot afford this extraordinary fee.
The Minister should consider the matter humanely. He would need to be as wise as Solomon to answer the many questions put by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr Ross), because there is no answer. A vast increase in personnel will be needed.
From a security point of view the system is not half as effective as that in the old days, when police at every police station knew the people in their area who had guns and the day their certificates would expire. Two days before they expired a police constable called at one's home and said "Your certificate is up and needs to be renewed." I have a firearms certificate. I never looked at it, and it had been expired for months before I found out. That used not to happen.
Why cannot we have parity with the rest of the United Kingdom? Why cannot the citizens and farmers of Northern Ireland be treated in the same way as farmers and citizens of the rest of the United Kingdom? It has been argued that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and that therefore we should have laws similar to those of the rest of the United Kingdom. We are not arguing about that. We are happy to accept that in many ways, although we would differ on some matters.
This order is not in the best interests of Northern Ireland, because the people who pay for their gun licences are law-abiding people. They are not terrorists. They are not the people who want to bring down the Government. They are the best supporters of the establishment in the community, and they have an inalienable right to bear arms legally. That right is being eroded in an attempt eventually to take it from the people of Northern Ireland. I agree with those who have spoken before me, who know far more about this subject than I know; but I know the feelings of my constituents in this matter, and I trust that the Minister will take them on board.

2.1 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James A. Dunn): I have listened to arguments about the right to hold firearms and to criticisms of the Government's control of firearms legislation. I say to those who feel excited about this matter that they should perhaps read the Firearms Act which went through Stormont in 1969. The present Government did not introduce that legislation. We are talking about a variation of fees—that alone and nothing else.
It has for some time been an established practice throughout the United Kingdom that in the issue of firearms certificates the service pays for itself from the licence fees paid by those who hold the guns. It is very unfair to expect the cost to be passed on to the general taxpayer. I understand the feelings of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) because he is an enthusiast in these matters. I have not heard it suggested that the rate should be paid in respect of football grounds.

Mr. Wm. Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman say how much money has been spent in providing football grounds in Northern Ireland in the past five years and how much has been provided for fishing, shooting and other field sports?

Mr. Dunn: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman offhand how much money is being provided for any recreation. That matter does not come within my portfolio. The hon. Gentleman got rather carried away and ascribed responsibility with regard to the right of individuals to hold firearms, and I thought that he would wish me to draw his attention to the question of the control of firearms in the Act which, as he is well aware, had nothing to do with the present Government.

Mr. James Kilfedder: Mr. James Kilfedder (Down, North) rose—

Mr. Dunn: No, not for the moment.

Mr. Kilfedder: Mr. Kilfedder rose—

Mr. Dunn: I always mean what I say. I do not intend to repeat it. The answer is "No", in case the hon. Gentleman wants it a second time.
I have always taken the view that firearms in the wrong hands can be a source of danger to the community. I generally agree with the controls which have been exercised under the 1969 Act. In Northern Ireland there are even stronger reasons for controlling the circulation of firearms. I do not share the view that legal firearms are never used for illegal purposes. Many firearms have been legally issued and certificates have been held for them, but they have been stolen and have been used in some of the atrocities and foulest of murders and assassinations. We know that to be a fact.
If the hon. Member for Londonderry says that he supports the individual's right


to hold a firearm, I am sure that there would be many areas of conflict in his constituency if certain people with whom he might disagree were to apply for firearms certificates.
I want now to deal with the points brought to my notice by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). The estimates we have made cover the three-year cycle, as he indicated. In 1975, the figures were 6,145 new certificates and 32,000 renewals. We are getting to the situation in 1978 when the figures will return to that high level, and we have to try to average the fees over the three-year cycle.
It is not easy to distinguish the complex sums required for the fees. We tried to smooth over the three-year cycle, taking account of the fluctuations which occur. We have to take account of the increases in costs, inclusive of pay. The last figures which I have to defend tonight were for 1975–76. Since then, there has been a cost escalation, and the requirement is now estimated at £300,000. By the variation of fees projected in the order, we believe that it will give a return of £339,000. The surplus of £39,000, if that is a correct projection, will soon be utilised in taking account of and being absorbed by higher costs.
The hon. Gentleman felt strongly about consultation. We consult the organisation hi Northern Ireland except when fees are involved. We do not consult them on fees because we believe that it is a simple matter of arithmetic.
The hon. Member for Londonderry questioned the number of people employed, going as far as to suggest that this order reflected the building up of a department unnecessarily in the light of the circumstances in Northern Ireland for the control and licensing or firearms. I do not completely share his view. I have always taken the view that in Northern Ireland there are so many problems relating to the movement and control of firearms that we need the maximum response on each and every occasion that anyone make application for a certificate.
The fees are to cover costs. It is a matter or simple arithmetic. The figures are there to be seen. We need £300,000-plus this year and next to cover the costs. Not only must wages, superannuation and insurance payments be taken into

account but buildings and their upkeep and the rates must also be included. At the end of the day, what we are doing is to reflect the actual costs of the service to those who require certificates.
The other point concerned the number of staff. The hon. Member for Londonderry quoted it as though it was a great surprise and as thought he had learnt something that the House would wish to know. The figure he gave of 34 was correct. The staff consists of five policemen and 29 civilians. The information was given to him in a parliamentary Answer.
In 1935, the staff totalled 32—three policemen and 29 civilians. There has been an increase of two policemen to the establishment controlling firearms, and that is surely a very modest increase. I believe that the department has done a very useful job under great difficulty, serving the needs of the Province and the needs and security of its people.

Mr. Farr: What is the position about the suggested standing advisory committee? I spent some time why I thought that it would be a good idea to have a standing advisory committee. It would help the Secretary of State, and also help the shooting people to understand what was going on.

Mr. Dunn: I will bring that matter to the attention of the Secretary of State. Frankly, I do not believe that a Standing advisory committee would serve any useful purpose. The shooting interests of Northern Ireland have a great degree of interchange of views, consultation and discussion about every aspect other than licensing fees, so that there is very little room for improvement on the present position. But I will bring the matter to the notice of those concerned to see whether there are any advantages in having some sort of regular committee which would meet some of the points to which attention has been drawn. But the structure is the same in any event throughout the United Kingdom, and the same thing has been done in each case.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Firearms (Variation of Fees) Order (Northern Ireland) 1977 (S.R. &amp; O. (N.I.) 1977, No. 360), dated 15th December 1977, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th December 1977.

BLENHEIM PAPERS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Marshall.]

2.10 a.m.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: It is unusual for an hon. Member to have the opportunity of raising in this House a matter which is of concern to him personally and professionally, in addition to his constituency interest, and although the subject which I am raising at this late hour at first sight appear to be somewhat recondite, it has implications and significance which go beyond this particular episode.
Early in 1977, the Treasury accepted, in partial settlement of the estate of the late Duke of Marlborough, the Blenheim archive, which consists of a very substantial quantity of the papers of John, first Duke of Marlborough, and including the Sunderland papers.
In April 1977, libraries and archive centres were invited to apply for consideration by the Minister for the Arts—who in such matters seeks the advice of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts—for custody of this uniquely important collection. On 12th April 1977, immediately after this announcement, application was made by Churchill College, Cambridge.
Churchill College, which was established as a living memorial to Sir Winston, possesses an archives centre which was opened in 1973 and which contains the most modern facilities for the safe storage and use of historical documents. It is a purpose-built archive centre, with the most advanced protection against fire and theft, air-conditioned and humidity-controlled, with a special fumigation for the safe destruction of fungal infestation of documents. It also possesses a comprehensively equipped conservation workshop and a full-time conservationist of very high reputation, whose preservation work, particularly on damaged documents, is of outstanding quality.
The centre has a keeper, a full-time qualified archivist and graduate assistant, and a secretary, in addition to the conservationist, and full supporting facilities cient, dedicated and widely respected one. If it is a small unit, it is a highly effi-

Its facilities are outstanding, and its staff is devoted to the administration of the archive and its service to scholars.
The archive contains the voluminous papers of Sir Winston, his father, Lord Randolph, and a considerable number of the papers of John, first Duke of Marlborough. These include some 1,200 original Marlborough documents collected by Sir Winston while he was researching his biography of his ancestor, and presented to Churchill College by Lady Churchill, and also the highly important correspondence between Marlborough and Antonie Heinsius, grand pensionary of The Netherlands during the war of the Spanish succession. These papers were the gift of Queen Wilhelmina and the Dutch Government to Sir Winston in gratitude for his unforgettable services to the cause of Dutch liberation.
The archive also contains the papers of General Thomas Erie, one of Marl-borough's most trusted officers. This represents a major collection in itself of the Marlborough papers. Among its more modern collections are papers on Lord Attlee, Lord Swinton, Lord Slim, Lord Esher, Lord Hankey, Lord Van-sittart, Reginald McKenna, Sir Edward Spears and—a most satisfactory renewed liaison—Mrs. Virginia Crawford and Sir Charles Dilke. But the gems of the collection are, obviously, the papers of the first Duke, Lord Randolph, and Sir Winston, kept in one archive under perfect conditions in the college that bears their name and commemorates three centuries of brilliant service to this nation by one extraordinary family.
It was the wish of the present Duke and Lady Churchill that the Blenheim archive should join this collection in Cambridge. Indeed, Lady Churchill felt so deeply about the matter that she joined me in a public letter to The Times and she wrote privately to the Prime Minister. Among others who pressed the case for Cambridge were Mr. Harold Macmillan, Sir John Colville, Professor J. H. Plumb and my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill), who is unable to be present at the debate tonight but has asked me to emphasise his personal and family concern about this matter.
Although the decision in such matters is technically that of the Secretary of


State for Education and Science, effectively it is that of the Minister for the arts, who in his turn is advised by the Royal Commission on Historical Documents. I believe that that excessively complex chain was at least partly responsible for the subsequent confusion and for the extraordinary decision made by the Minister that the papers should be sent to the British Library in London.
Having invited representatives of the Department of Education and Science and the Commission to visit the centre, Churchill College was surprised and concerned to receive no reply to its application apart from a single printed card of acknowledgement. When a member of the Commission visited Churchill in July 1977, six days before the Commission met to consider the matter, he emphasised that he was doing so informally. It became evident that he was unclear on certain vital and fundamental aspects of the Churchill application.
When the college raised the matter with the secretary of the Commission, Mr G. R. C. Davis, the eminent former deputy keeper of manuscripts at the British Library, it was informed that a member of the Commission staff had recently visited the archive. In fact, the visit was paid over a month before the public announcement of April 1977 and was again entirely informal and casual in nature.
It should be said at this point that a major misunderstanding seems to have arisen between the Commission and the DES. The Commission says that its role is purely advisory and that it is not entitled to be in direct contact with applicant institutions. How it is to evaluate their merits without such contact is to me inexplicable. For its part the DES firmly states that the processing of applications lies in the hands of the Commission. In any event, no representative of the Department, let alone the Minister responsible for the decision, has visited Churchill or has been in contact with it except in response to telephone calls.
As this curious proceeding has taken so long and so mysterious a course, I asked the Minister to meet a deputation consisting of myself, the Duke of Marl-borough, Sir John Colville, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford, Profes-

sor Plumb and representatives of the college on 24th January, the day of Lady Churchill's memorial service. On 19th January I was informed that the decision was to be announced on 23rd January. In the event it was made on 25th January. There was accordingly no point in the Minister meeting the delegation.
I assure the Minister of State that I do not want to make any particular point about this, but it seemed unfortunate that the decision was announced in the week of Lady Churchill's memorial service and that it was not possible for the Minister for the arts to delay the decision until he had heard the distinguished delegation.
In his announcement of 25th January the Minister said that he had been particularly influenced by the advice of the Commission that
the cataloguing, arrangement and scholarly use of the Blenheim archives will require constant reference to and close comparison with other papers of the period already held by the British Library.
That statement could not have been made by a scholar and certainly not by anyone with any personal experience of working in the manuscript department of the British Library. The advantages of having the complete archive of the first duke in one site far outweighs the quite illusory asset of "constant reference" to other papers. The Minister's argument is untenable in historical, scholastic and practical terms.
The Minister went on to say:
I have also been impressed by the scale of the resources required for the proper cataloguing and conservation of the collection.
By that he means that he is impressed by the resources of the British Library as he has not discovered those of Churchill College.
What are the resources at the British Library? I refer the House to a devastating recent article by Mr. Nicholas Barker, the new head of conservation at the British Library, in The Times Literary Supplement of 18th November 1977, entitled "Blight in Bloomsbury", in which he rightly relates the lamentable conditions for the preservation of books and papers in the library, and concludes that
The crisis can only be resolved by an increase in trained conservation staff, and by the provision of proper conditions for the storage and use of all the different kinds of material in the British Library ".


Mr. Barker's strictures are fully merited. The British Library does not have air-conditioned or humidity-controlled storage facilities. It does not have adequate staff. Its record in preparing catalogues, in which it has made promises to the Minister which seem to me impossible to fulfil, is poor. The collections themselves are deteriorating. None of this is secret or new information. Indeed, the crisis to which Mr. Barker refers—and such it is—is spelt out clearly and starkly in the annual reports of the Library since 1973, and they make dismal reading. I shall quote only from the 1976–77 report:
Strenuous efforts are being made to reduce the cataloguing backlog … The problem of how to best to conserve the priceless collections in the care of the Library while making them available for study to present and future readers has been the subject of a major review. It is clear that substantial additional resources will be required over a considerable period in order to halt the progressive and accelerating deterioration of the collections.
All the evidence at my disposal makes me profoundly doubtful whether the British Library is technically capable at present of handling the collection in anything approaching the matter which Churchill College can, and the Duke of Marlborough has authorised me to express his considerable concern on this aspect.
I should like now to put two questions to the Minister. Is it correct that the board of trustees of the British Library had never been consulted or made a collective decision about either the application or the acceptance? Secondly, can the Minister confirm the points that I have made about facilities at the British Library?
I am asking for this decision to be at least reviewed, and at best reversed. What it means is that the wishes of the Churchill family—including what was virtually the last wish of Lady Churchill—have been ignored; that the papers of John, first Duke of Marlborough, will have been split up permanently, to the great detriment of scholars and scholarships: that these papers have been entrusted to an institution which does not at present possess the proper facilities for their conservation: and that the archive centre that is most qualified and is most appropriate has had its claims virtually unconsidered.
There is no case, in terms of scholastic value or practicality, for the Min-

ister's action. It would, indeed, be a national tragedy if the papers were thus to be divided and for the concept of the Churchill archives—complete, and meticulously maintained—to be damaged so severely by this ill-considered and indefensible decision.
I should like to conclude on a personal note. As the youthful biographer of Lord Randolph Churchill and of Lord Rosebery, and who played some part in ensuring that the Rosebery papers remained in Scotland, I do not accept the proposition that great collections should necessarily be in London. The Rosebery papers belong to Edinburgh and the Chamberlain papers to Birmingham. Ideally, the Churchill papers should be housed either at Blenheim or Chartwell, but the fact is that the vast bulk of them are now in Churchill College, in my constituency. I appeal to the Minister, and to the House, that this unique collection should be housed in one place, in the building created as a memorial to that family, where it would be complete, and where it would be treasured and preserved for all time.
I am deeply obliged to the Minister for attending this debate. I am sure he will understand that I am making rather more than a constituency appeal to him.

2.23 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gordon Oakes): I am certain that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) is making much more than a constituency approach to this matter, and I am grateful to him for having raised this matter on the Adjournment.
I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said about Sir Winston being a great leader of this nation at a time when we were in peril. What we are concerned with, and what the Government are concerned with, is not the papers of Sir Winston but those of his ancestor—papers that originated at a time when the nation was in jeopardy many hundreds of years ago.
In a way, this debate breaks new ground. It could not have taken place a few years ago. While provision for works of art to be offered and accepted in satisfaction of tax liabilities on death has existed since 1956, it was only with the passing of the 1973 Finance Act that this


became possible in respect of books and manuscripts. The Blenheim collection, which is the subject of this debate, is, in fact, the very first collection of manuscripts accepted under the extended provitions of the 1973 Act which have been referred to my Department for a decision on their allocation.
For a collection to be so accepted in payment of the whole or part of any tax liability, the Government must be satisfied that it is
pre-eminent for its national, scientific, historic or artistic interest".
The standard is, therefore, very high and by no means all objects offered in settlement of tax liability are accepted. Once an article is accepted and payment for it made from the National Land Fund, it rests with the Minister responsible for the arts in England, Scotland or Wales—the country in which the tax liability arises—to decide to which appropriate public collection it should be assigned.
The basic principle of allocation is that the article should go to the most appropriate public collection, whether national local authority or university. Where the allocation of books or manuscripts is concerned, the appropriate Minister, in reaching his decision, needs to have regard to such factors as the relevance of the article to a particular collection, the adequacy of resources available for cataloguing, conservation and protection, accessibility to scholars and, where applicable, the wishes of executors or testators, though such wishes cannot be regarded as overriding. The Government, as purchaser, must have the final say on the allocation of the property.
Although the decision is a ministerial one, it will be obvious that to help him to arrive at a decision of this sort the Minister needs to have access to expert and authoritative advice. In the case of manuscripts, advice is sought from that august body, the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts, while a special panel of experts has been constituted under the chairmanship of Mr. Howard Nixon, librarian of Westminster Abbey library, for the specific purpose of advising on the allocation of printed books.
Turning now to the subject of the present debate, no one, I am sure, would doubt the pre-eminence of this collection

of papers, known as the Blenheim archives, which formed part of the estate of the tenth Duke of Marlborough. It has been described authoritatively as
indisputably an archive of the greatest national and historical importance".
The collection is a very large one amounting to some 30,000 documents and falls broadly into three main groups.
One group comprises personal and official papers of John Churchill, first Duke of Marlborough. They include letters relating to his various campaigns, as well as letters from Royalty, politicians and other important persons of the time. Then there are papers relating to his wife Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough, Groom of the Stole and Keeper of the Privy Purse to Queen Anne. These include letters between her husband and herself, letters from Queen Anne to her and many letters to her from nearly every contemporary person of consequence. Also included in the collection are papers relating to the history of the building of Blenheim Palace.
I understand that a good deal of cataloguing and skilled repair work remains to be done to bring the collection into satisfactory final shape, but there can be no doubt about its being one of outstanding national importance, representing, as it does, an important source for the national, political and military history of the period.
The collection was offered to, and accepted by, the Government in satisfaction of estate duty at the cost of £342,300 to the National Land Fund. The offer was made unconditionally, and without any wishes being expressed as to its allocation. My noble Friend the Minister responsible for the arts then had the task of deciding on the most suitable ultimate destination for the collection and, as a first, but important step, he looked at the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts for advice.
I should like to pay tribute to Lord Denning, chairman of the Commission, and his colleagues, who include a number of distinguished historians, for the very great care and thoroughness which they gave the matter. Five institutions made bids for the collection. These were the British Library, Churchill College, Cambridge, the Bodleian, Oxford, the Public Record Office and the National Army


Museum. The claims of each received close consideration by the Commission, but, in the end, its unanimous—I repeat, unanimous—recommendation was that the collection should, in the interests of scholarship and learning, be lodged with the British Library.
The Commission was in no doubt that the primary and central relevance of the whole collection is overwhelmingly to national rather than to family or local history. The British Library is, of course, the central national collection of manuscripts and already has a formidable holding of material closely related to the Blenheim papers. These include most notably the papers of Marlborough's contemporary, Robert Harley, first Earl of Oxford, the correspondence of Sidney Godolphin, first Karl of Godolphin, and of Marlborough's secretary, Adam Cardonnel. Also the British Library has long been regarded as the main archive relating to the building of Blenheim in the form of papers and correspondence of Henry Joynes, one of the comptrollers of works there. The Commission considered that the close proximity of these papers to the Blenheim collection would be of inestimable value to scholars researching the period providing, as it would, an extremely wide range of related contemporary material.
In reaching its recommendation, the Commission certainly was not unmindful of the merits of the cases put forward for Churchill College and for the other applicants. Nor was it unmindful of the fact that, while no wishes had been expressed about its allocation at the time the collection was offered in lieu of estate duty, various members of the Churchill family, including the late Lady Spencer-Churchill, the present Duke and the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) had subsequently indicated that Churchill College was their choice. While such wishes were most certainly taken into account, the Commission felt that greater weight must also be attached to the other factors that I mentioned earlier.
The Commission had regard to the fact that the chosen area of specialisation of the Churchill College archives centre was late nineteenth certury as well as twentieth century political, military, and scientific papers, including, of course, the papers of Sir Winston Churchill himself. The three collections of seventeenth to

eighteenth century historical papers that the college holds are understood to be quantitatively of lesser importance and might be held to be historically isolated. They do not compare with the very extensive collection of papers for the period which, as I have previously stated, is already in the possession of the British Library and which makes that library, in terms of printed as well as manuscript material, the principal national centre of research for the political history of the period in question.
Thus, the overwhelming recommendation of the Commission was for the collection to be allocated to the British Library. It does not follow, of course, that my noble Friend was obliged to follow the advice given to him by the Commission, though admittedly he would need to have strong and valid grounds for disregarding the advice of such an eminent and authorative body, particularly when that advice was unanimous and so firmly stated. Nevertheless, I assure the hon. Gentleman that my noble Friend did give very close and careful consideration to the Commission's recommendation and to the reasons underlying it before satisfying himself of its soundness. As he said when announcing his decision in another place on 25th January, he was, in particular, influenced by the Commission's advice that the cataloguing, arrangement and scholarly use of the Blenheim archives will require constant reference to and close comparison with other papers of the period already held by the British Library and also by the scale of the resources required for the proper cataloguing and conservation of the collection, comprising, as it does, about 30,000 documents. I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said about conditions within the British Library and it not being able properly to care for such a collection.
My noble Friend has also placed considerable store on the assurance given both to the Commission by the British Library and to himself personally by Lord Eccles, chairman of the British Library Board, that, if the library were to acquire these papers, an immediate and sustained major effort would be made to ensure access by scholars to the collection at the earliest possible moment. The House will, I know, appreciate the importance of this assurance. A detailed


catalogue with index is expected to be available for scholars visiting the Library in about 18 months and to be published in 1980.
I appreciate the disappointment felt by those who wanted to see the collection deposited with Churchill College. But I think there can be no denying that my noble Friend's decision to assign the collection to the British Library has been widely welcomed. I hope that what I have said will have made it clear why, when account is taken of all relevant circumstances, it was considered to be in the best interests of the nation and in particular of scholarship to allocate the collection to the British Library.

2.38 a.m.

Mr. Rhodes James: With the leave ol the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister of State for that reply, but

he will not be surprised that I am disappointed with it and that I contest some of the points that he made.
The hon. Gentleman did not answer my question whether the British Library Board had been consulted over the issue of facilities. The criticisms of the facilities which I quoted came from an article written by the head of conservation and from reports of the British Library itself. I cannot accept that the Library is able to give safe treatment to or provide proper facilities for these documents.
I genuinely thank the Minister for his reply to the debate, but I have to give notice that I shall not let the matter rest there.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Three o'clock a.m.